11702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission staff briefing package 

discussing this proposal, Briefing Package: 

Regulatory Alternatives for Upholstered Furniture 

Flammability, November 2007, (the ‘‘Staff Briefing 

Package’’) is available on the Internet at: http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia08/brief/ 

briefing.html. Copies may also be requested from 

the Commission’s Office of the Secretary at the 

address shown above. 

2Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and 

Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued statements 

which are available from the Commission’s Office 

of the Secretary (see ADDRESSES section of this 

notice) or from the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1634 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Residential Upholstered Furniture 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) is proposing 

flammability standards for residential 

upholstered furniture under the 

Flammable Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’). The 

proposal would establish performance 

requirements and certification and 

labeling requirements for upholstered 

furniture. Manufacturers of upholstered 

furniture would choose one of two 

possible methods of compliance: They 

could use cover materials that are 

sufficiently smolder resistant to meet a 

cigarette ignition performance test; or 

they could place fire barriers that meet 

smoldering and open flame resistance 

tests between the cover fabric and 

interior filling materials. Manufacturers 

of upholstered furniture would be 

required to certify compliance with the 

standard and to comply with certain 

recordkeeping requirements as specified 

in the proposal. 

DATES: Comments in response to this 

document must be received by the 

Commission not later than May 19, 

2008. 

Comments on elements of the 

proposed rule that, if issued in final 

form would constitute collection of 

information requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, may be filed 

with the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) and with the 

Commission. Comments will be 

received by OMB until May 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed 

by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Comments also may be filed by 

telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or 

mailed, preferably in five copies, to the 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, or 

delivered to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 

504–7530. Comments should be 

captioned ‘‘Upholstered Furniture 

NPR.’’ 

Comments to OMB should be directed 

to the Desk Officer for the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The 

Commission asks commenters to 

provide copies of such comments to the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary, 

with a caption or cover letter identifying 

the materials as comments submitted to 

OMB on the proposed collection of 

information requirements for the 

proposed upholstered furniture 

flammability standard. 

The public may also request an 

opportunity to present comments orally. 

Such requests should be submitted to 

the Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission by e-mail, mail, fax or in 

person at the addresses or phone 

numbers listed above for the CPSC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7704. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Regulatory/technical activity. In 1993 

the National Association of State Fire 

Marshals (‘‘NASFM’’) petitioned the 

Commission to issue regulations under 

the FFA addressing upholstered 

furniture fire risks. NASFM requested 

that the Commission adopt three 

existing state of California standards. 

The Commission granted the petition 

in part, and issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) on June 

15, 1994 on the specific risk of small 

open flame-ignited fires. 59 FR 30,735 

(1994). The Commission denied the 

petition with respect to large open 

flame-ignited fires, and deferred action 

on the petition with respect to cigaretteignited fires pending a CPSC staff 

evaluation of: (1) The level of voluntary 

conformance to existing voluntary 

industry guidelines, and (2) the overall 

level of cigarette ignition resistance 

among products on the market. 

Following issuance of the 1994 ANPR, 

CPSC staff developed a draft 

performance standard and a test method 

to evaluate the small open flame 

performance of upholstered furniture. In 

October 1997, the staff forwarded a 

briefing package to the Commission 

concluding that a small open flame 

standard was feasible and could 

effectively reduce the risk to consumers, 

including both small open flame and 

cigarette ignitions. The staff 

recommended that the Commission 

defer action until the agency could 

gather additional scientific information 

to ensure that flame retardant (‘‘FR’’) 

upholstery fabric treatments that 

manufacturers might use would not 

result in adverse health effects. The staff 

recommended that the Commission 

defer action on the cigarette ignition 

portion of the 1993 NASFM petition 

pending a decision on open flame 

ignition. On October 5, 2001, NASFM 

withdrew the portion of the petition 

seeking Commission action with respect 

to cigarette-ignited fires. 

In July of 2003 the CPSC staff 

recommended that the Commission 

issue an ANPR to expand the 

upholstered furniture proceeding to 

address ignition of upholstered 

furniture by both small open flames and 

by smoldering cigarettes. The 

Commission accepted the staff’s 

recommendation, and the ANPR was 

published on October 23, 2003. 68 FR 

60,619. The 2003 ANPR sought 

comment on issues relating to the kinds 

of standard provisions that might best 

address the upholstered furniture fire 

risk in its entirety. 

The Commission received 13 written 

comments during the 60-day formal 

comment period following publication 

of the ANPR. Interested parties 

subsequently provided additional 

written submissions in the form of 

letters, position statements or 

presentations of technical data at 

meetings. A detailed discussion of 

significant comments received is 

provided in Section G of this preamble. 

In October 2004, the staff held a public 

meeting to present the direction of what 

would become the staff’s 2005 draft 

standard. The staff analyzed comments 

received at that meeting as well. The 

proposed standard takes account of that 

analysis. Staff received comments on its 

2005 draft standard, continued its 

research and analysis and developed a 

revised, 2007 draft proposal that 

focused primarily on preventing 

smoldering ignitions and reducing the 

need for flame retardant chemicals.1

This notice presents the 2007 draft as 

the Commission’s proposed standard.2

Overview of the proposed standard. 

The proposed standard establishes two 

possible approaches. Upholstered 

furniture can meet the proposed 

standard by having either (1) upholstery 

cover material that complies with the 

prescribed smoldering ignition 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11703 

resistance test (referred to as ‘‘Type I’’

furniture) or (2) an interior fire barrier 

that complies with specified smoldering 

and small open flame ignition resistance 

tests (‘‘Type II’’ furniture). No 

requirements are prescribed for filling 

materials. The standard would become 

effective one year after issued in final 

form and would apply to upholstered 

furniture manufactured or imported on 

or after that date. 

The performance tests prescribed in 

the proposed standard are conducted 

with the tested material installed in 

mockups that simulate the intersection 

of the seating area of an item of 

upholstered furniture. In addition to the 

material under test, the mockup is 

assembled using standardized 

upholstery test materials as defined in 

the proposed standard. 

Manufacturers (including importers) 

of upholstered furniture would be 

required to certify that the article of 

upholstered furniture complies with the 

proposed standard and to maintain 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the applicable portions of the proposed 

standard. Upholstered furniture subject 

to the proposed standard would be 

required to be labeled with information 

identifying the manufacturer, the date of 

manufacture, the item and type of 

furniture, and a statement certifying that 

the article complies with applicable 

requirements of the standard. 

B. Statutory Authority 

This proceeding is conducted 

pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable 

Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’), which authorizes 

the Commission to initiate proceedings 

for a flammability standard when it 

finds that such a standard is ‘‘needed to 

protect the public against unreasonable 

risk of the occurrence of fire leading to 

death or personal injury, or significant 

property damage.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1193(a). 

Section 4 also sets forth the process 

by which the Commission may issue a 

flammability standard. As required in 

section 4(g), the Commission has issued 

an ANPR. 68 FR 60629. 15 U.S.C. 

1193(g). The Commission has reviewed 

the comments submitted in response to 

the ANPR and now is issuing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) 

containing the text of the proposed rule 

along with alternatives the Commission 

has considered and a preliminary 

regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). 

The Commission will consider 

comments provided in response to the 

NPR and decide whether to issue a final 

rule along with a final regulatory 

analysis. Id. 1193(j). The FFA also 

requires that when issuing a standard or 

regulation the Commission must 

provide an opportunity for interested 

persons to present their views orally. Id. 

1193(d). 

The Commission cannot issue a final 

rule unless it makes certain findings and 

includes these in the regulation. The 

Commission must find: (1) If an 

applicable voluntary standard has been 

adopted and implemented, that 

compliance with the voluntary standard 

is not likely to adequately reduce the 

risk of injury, or compliance with the 

voluntary standard is not likely to be 

substantial; (2) that benefits expected 

from the regulation bear a reasonable 

relationship to its costs; and (3) that the 

regulation imposes the least 

burdensome alternative that would 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 

U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). In addition, the 

Commission must find that the standard 

(1) is needed to adequately protect the 

public against the risk of the occurrence 

of fire leading to death, injury or 

significant property damage, (2) is 

reasonable, technologically practicable, 

and appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, 

related materials or products which 

present unreasonable risks, and (4) is 

stated in objective terms. Id. 1193(b). 

C. The Product 

The proposed standard applies to 

residential upholstered furniture. The 

proposal specifically requires testing of 

cover fabrics and, alternatively, barrier 

materials if they are used as a means of 

complying with the proposed standard. 

Upholstered furniture is defined for 

purposes of the proposed standard to 

include articles of interior seating 

furnishing intended for indoor use in a 

home or other residential occupancy 

that: (1) Consist in whole or in part of 

resilient cushioning materials (such as 

foam, batting, or related materials) 

covered by fabric or related materials; 

and (2) are constructed with a 

contiguous upholstered seat and back or 

arms. Included within the definition are 

products that are intended or promoted 

for indoor residential use for sitting or 

reclining upon, such as: Chairs, sofas, 

motion furniture, sleep sofas, home 

office furniture customarily offered for 

sale through retailers or otherwise 

available for residential use, and 

upholstered furniture intended for use 

in dormitories or other residential 

occupancies. Items excluded from the 

definition are: Furniture, such as patio 

chairs, intended solely for outdoor use; 

furniture without contiguous 

upholstered seating and backs and/or 

arm surfaces, such as ottomans, pillows 

or pads that are not sold with the article 

of furniture; commercial or industrial 

furniture not offered for sale through 

retailers or not otherwise available for 

residential use; furniture intended or 

sold solely for use in hotels and other 

short-term lodging and hospitality 

establishments; futons, flip chairs, the 

mattress portions of sleep sofas, and 

non-furniture infant or juvenile 

products such as walkers, strollers, high 

chairs or pillows. 

Commission staff estimates that the 

proposed standard would affect more 

than 1,600 manufacturers and importers 

of upholstered furniture and the 100–

200 textile manufacturers that derive a 

significant share of their revenues from 

household furniture fabrics. The staff 

estimates that the average useful life of 

upholstered furniture ranges from 15 to 

17 years. Assuming that the expected 

life of a piece of upholstered furniture 

is about 16 years, the average number of 

upholstered furniture items in 

household use during 2002–2004 was 

about 447 million pieces. Upholstered 

furniture products and manufacturers 

are discussed in greater detail in section 

H, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, of 

this preamble. 

The top four companies accounted for 

nearly 35 percent of the total value of 

household upholstered furniture 

shipments in 2002; the 50 largest 

companies accounted for about 67 

percent. The industry also includes 

many small companies. The staff 

estimates that nearly all of the affected 

firms (over 97 percent) would be 

classified as small businesses under 

Small Business Administration 

guidelines. The staff’s initial analysis of 

the potential impact of the proposed 

standard on such ‘‘small entities’’ is 

provided in section I., Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, of this preamble. 

As discussed in section D of this 

preamble, the majority of deaths and 

injuries resulting from fires involving 

upholstered furniture were started by 

smoldering ignition sources (such as 

cigarettes). The staff’s test data show 

that furniture covered with 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics (such 

as cotton and rayon) is much more 

likely to be involved in cigarette-ignited 

fires than furniture covered with 

predominantly thermoplastic fabrics 

(such as polyester, polyolefin, and 

nylon). The proposed standard focuses 

primarily on reducing deaths and 

injuries from smoldering ignited fires. 

Staff estimates that about 14 percent of 

currently-produced furniture items are 

likely to fail the proposed standard’s 

smoldering ignition test for cover 

fabrics. These would primarily be items 

constructed with certain predominantly 

cellulosic fabrics; staff believes most of 

these fabrics could be modified to meet 

the proposed standard. Staff anticipates 

that most manufacturers are likely to 

bring these furniture items into 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

3Numbers do not add up to totals due to 

rounding. 

compliance by modifying the physical 

characteristics of the cover fabrics rather 

than by using flame retardant (FR) fabric 

treatments. Alternatively, manufacturers 

would have the option to meet the 

proposed standard by using barrier 

materials that pass open flame and 

smoldering ignition tests rather than 

changing the cover fabric. 

D. Risk of Injury 

Annual estimates of national fires and 

fire losses involving ignition of 

upholstered furniture are based on data 

from the U.S. Fire Administration’s 

National Fire Incident Reporting System 

(‘‘NFIRS’’) and the National Fire 

Protection Administration’s (‘‘NFPA’’) 

annual survey of fire departments. 

National fire loss estimates for 2002–

2004 indicated that upholstered 

furniture was the first item to ignite in 

an average 7,800 residential fires 

attended by the fire service annually 

during that period. These fires resulted 

in an average of 540 deaths, 870 injuries 

and $250 million in property loss each 

year. 

Of these fires, the staff considers an 

estimated 3,500 fires, 280 deaths, 500 

injuries, and $112 million property loss 

annually to be addressable by the 

proposed standard. Addressable here 

means the incidents were of a type that 

would be affected by the proposed 

standard (i.e., a fire that ignited 

upholstered furniture and that had a 

smoking material or small open flame 

heat source). Approximately 90% of 

estimated deaths, 65% of estimated 

injuries and 59% of property damage 

resulted from ignition by smoking 

materials, almost always cigarettes. The 

remaining addressable fires were started 

by small open flame sources. Among the 

addressable casualties, smoking 

materials accounted for about 260 

deaths and 320 injuries annually. Small 

open flame fires accounted for about 30 

deaths and 170 injuries annually.3

E. Other Upholstered Furniture 

Flammability Standards 

1. California Regulatory Activity 

California Technical Bulletin 117 

(‘‘TB–117’’), the mandatory regulation 

for all upholstered furniture sold in that 

state, contains both smoldering and 

small open flame resistance 

performance requirements. Complying 

upholstered furniture is generally 

similar to furniture sold in other states, 

except that California furniture is 

typically made with FR resilient foam 

filling materials. In early 2002, the 

California Bureau of Home Furnishings 

and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) 

released a draft revision of TB–117. This 

draft revision contained upgraded 

performance requirements for small 

open flame ignition resistance of filling 

materials, and a cover material test 

similar to that developed by the 

Commission staff in its 2001 draft small 

open flame standard. The TB–117 

smoldering resistance provisions were 

not changed. 

The California BHFTI has not 

proposed amendments to TB–117 to 

incorporate the 2002 draft revision. The 

BHFTI’s comment on the Commission’s 

October 23, 2003 ANPR expressed 

support for a uniform national standard. 

BHFTI recommended that the 

Commission consider adopting 

appropriate elements of the 2002 draft 

revised TB–117 into a proposed 

Commission rule. The proposed 

standard contains some requirements 

similar to provisions of TB–117. 

2. United Kingdom Regulations 

The U.K. Department of Trade and 

Industry (‘‘DTI’’) enforces the U.K. 

Furniture and Furnishings 

(Flammability) Regulations, issued in 

1990. These regulations contain 

smoldering and open flame resistance 

requirements for residential upholstered 

furniture based on test methods in 

British Standard BS 5852. The CPSC 

proposed standard’s fire barrier open 

flame test uses the apparatus and 

ignition source from the U.K. 

regulations. 

3. Voluntary Standards Activity 

Since the Commission’s original 

ANPR on upholstered furniture was 

published in 1994, industry groups have 

been encouraged to develop voluntary 

flammability requirements through a 

recognized standards organization. The 

Upholstered Furniture Action Council 

(‘‘UFAC’’) voluntary industry program 

of cigarette ignition tests developed in 

the 1970s is embodied in ASTM E–1353 

and other voluntary test methods. 

Commission staff estimates voluntary 

UFAC conformance at about 90% of 

furniture production. The UFAC 

voluntary program does not address 

small open flame ignitions. Aspects of 

the UFAC cigarette ignition resistance 

test methods, California BHF Technical 

Bulletins (TB) 116, 117, and 133, and 

British Standard BS–5852 have been 

adopted by various consensus voluntary 

standards organizations and industry 

groups, including ASTM International, 

the International Standards 

Organization, the National Fire 

Protection Association and the Business 

and Institutional Furniture 

Manufacturers of America, and have 

also been incorporated into some state 

and local fire codes. Some industry 

groups have suggested that the 

Commission should adopt the UFAC 

program as a proposed rule. As 

discussed in section G.1 of this 

preamble, the Commission concludes 

that mandating the UFAC guidelines 

would have little effect on reducing 

deaths and injuries related to 

upholstered furniture fires. 

F. The Proposed Standard 

In developing the proposed 

flammability standard to address 

ignitions of residential upholstered 

furniture, the Commission considered 

the available hazard information, 

existing standards development 

research together with the latest CPSC 

laboratory data, and technical 

information developed by other 

organizations. Economic, health and 

environmental factors were also 

considered. 

1. Scope 

The proposed standard contains 

flammability performance requirements 

for most residential upholstered 

furniture. The proposed standard 

applies to: 

• Residential seating products 

intended for indoor use and constructed 

with contiguous upholstered seats and 

backs, such as chairs and sofas 

(including motion furniture and sleep 

sofas); 

• Some home office furniture sold 

through retailers or otherwise available 

for household use; and 

• Upholstered furniture used in 

dormitories or other residential 

occupancies. 

The proposed standard does not apply 

to: 

• Outdoor furniture, such as patio 

chairs; 

• Articles without contiguous 

upholstered seating surfaces, such as 

ottomans, decorative pillows or pads, 

and many office chairs and dining 

chairs; 

• Commercial or industrial furniture 

not intended or sold for household use; 

• Furniture intended or sold solely 

for use in hotels and other temporary 

lodging and hospitality establishments; 

• Futons, flip chairs, and the mattress 

components of sleep sofas; and 

• Non-furniture juvenile products 

such as walkers, strollers, high chairs 

and pillows. 

2. General Requirements 

The proposed standard addresses 

resistance to ignition and limited fire 

growth by means of performance tests 

for cover fabrics and, alternatively, for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11705 

barriers. The principal performance 

requirements of the proposed standard 

are intended to reduce the risk of fire 

from smoldering ignition. If barriers are 

chosen as the means of compliance, 

they must meet both small open flame 

and smoldering resistance requirements. 

The proposal adapts elements and 

variations of existing standards, 

including California Technical Bulletin 

117, ASTM E–1353 (tests from the 

UFAC voluntary industry guidelines) 

and United Kingdom regulations (based 

on British Standard BS–5852). 

The upholstered furniture tests are 

conducted using seating mockups of 

fabric and filling materials. The goal is 

to reduce the smolder propensity of 

cover materials and limit the mass loss 

from combustion (smoldering, melting, 

or flaming) of the mockup’s interior 

filling materials. Pass/fail criteria are 

based on maximum acceptable 

combustion time and mass loss 

percentages within a 45 minute test 

period. 

3. Cover Fabric Smoldering Resistance 

Test 

In this test, fabrics are tested in 

combination with a standard 

polyurethane foam substrate. A lighted 

cigarette is placed in the seat/back 

crevice of the mockup and is allowed to 

burn its entire length. The mockup must 

not continue to smolder at the end of 

the 45 minute test or transition to 

flaming at any time during the test, and 

the foam substrate must not exceed the 

mass loss limit of 10%. Ten initial 

specimens are tested. If the 10 initial 

specimens meet these criteria, the cover 

fabric sample passes. If there is a failure 

in any one of the 10 initial specimens, 

the test must be repeated on an 

additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of 

the 30 specimens must meet the criteria. 

4. Interior Fire Barrier Smoldering 

Resistance Test 

In this test, the barrier is placed 

between a standard foam substrate and 

a standard cotton velvet cover fabric. A 

lighted cigarette is placed in the seat/ 

back crevice of the mockup. The foam 

substrate must not exceed 1% mass loss 

by the end of the 45 minute test, and the 

mockup must not transition to open 

flaming at any time during the test. Ten 

initial specimens are tested. If all 10 

initial specimens meet these criteria, the 

barrier sample passes. If any one of the 

ten fails, an additional 20 specimens are 

tested, and at least 25 of the 30 must 

meet the criteria. 

5. Interior Fire Barrier Open Flame 

Resistance Test 

The proposed standard also contains 

provisions for the open flame resistance 

of barriers. In addition to providing 

protection from small flame ignition, the 

open flame performance test contributes 

to the protection of materials from the 

progression of smoldering to flaming 

combustion. 

In this test, the barrier is placed 

between a standard rayon cover fabric 

and standard foam substrate on a metal 

test frame. An open flame ignition 

source is applied to the seat/back 

crevice of the mockup. The mockup 

must not exceed 20% mass loss by the 

end of the 45 minute test. Again, 10 

initial samples are tested. If there is a 

failure with any of the 10 specimens, an 

additional 20 specimens are tested, and 

at least 25 of the 30 must meet the 

criteria for the sample barrier to pass. 

6. Administrative Requirements 

In addition to flammability 

performance requirements, the proposed 

standard contains provisions relating to 

certification and recordkeeping, testing 

to support guaranties, and labeling of 

finished articles of upholstered 

furniture. These requirements are 

intended to help manufacturers, 

importers and suppliers ensure that 

their products comply, and to help the 

CPSC staff enforce the proposed 

performance standard. These provisions 

are contained in Subpart B of the 

proposed standard. 

Under § 8 of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197, 

producers of finished articles of 

upholstered furniture, i.e., 

manufacturers and importers, may rely 

on guaranties of compliance issued by 

material suppliers to avoid criminal 

prosecution in certain instances. 

However, manufacturers and importers 

are ultimately responsible under the 

proposal for compliance of the 

upholstered furniture products they 

produce and introduce into commerce. 

It is unlawful under the FFA to provide 

a false guaranty. While there are no 

specific sampling or production testing 

requirements in the proposed standard, 

the FFA requires that any guaranties be 

supported by reasonable and 

representative tests sufficient to 

establish that production units of 

materials meet the applicable tests. 

The proposed standard requires that 

each finished article of upholstered 

furniture carry a permanent label: (1) 

Containing a statement certifying that it 

complies with the standard, identifying 

the ‘‘Type’’ of furniture (i.e., Type I or 

Type II); (2) identifying the 

manufacturer or importer; and (3) 

specifying the location and month and 

year of manufacture and model and lot 

number or other identifier applicable to 

the item. This information would be 

required to be separate from other label 

information. The label would help 

retailers and consumers identify 

products in the event of a recall or other 

corrective action. 

G. Response to Comments on the ANPR 

and Subsequent Submissions 

The Commission received 13 written 

comments during the 60-day formal 

comment period following publication 

of the ANPR in October 2003. Since that 

time, interested parties provided about 

20 additional written submissions in the 

form of letters, position statements or 

technical presentations at public 

meetings. Further, the staff held or 

attended several public meetings with 

stakeholders to discuss issues of 

interest. 

Many of the public comments 

addressed similar issues. These issues 

generally involved: (a) The scope, test 

methods and acceptance criteria of a 

possible proposed rule; (b) the potential 

benefits and costs of various 

alternatives; and (c) the potential use of 

flame retardant (FR) chemicals to 

comply with those alternatives. Some of 

the comments dealt specifically with the 

staff’s 2001 and 2005 draft standards, 

options that contained more open flame 

performance requirements for 

upholstery materials than the proposed 

rule. A few of the comments dealt with 

the staff’s 2007 draft proposal, which 

became the agency’s proposed standard. 

The Commission considered all of the 

comments received since 2003 in 

developing the proposed rule. 

1. Scope and Test Methods 

Comment. Several industry, 

government and fire safety organizations 

provided comments on the general 

scope of a standard, mainly with respect 

to cigarette versus open flame ignition 

performance. 

Under the 2003 ANPR, the staff 

developed multiple draft standards 

containing both smoldering and open 

flame requirements. The proposed rule 

places primary emphasis on smoldering 

ignition resistance, as a substantial 

majority of upholstered furniture-related 

deaths, injuries and property losses 

result from smoldering fires. Several 

furniture industry groups commented 

that the fire risk associated with open 

flame ignition has become so small that 

regulation in that area is unnecessary. 

They also commented that the science 

of open flame ignition behavior is so 

complex that substantial further 

research would be needed to support 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

any reasonable conclusions about the 

effectiveness and technical adequacy of 

any performance requirements. In 

addition, they opposed open flame 

ignition requirements on the basis that 

compliance costs would be 

unreasonably high. These groups 

recommended that the Commission 

proceed with rulemaking on smoldering 

ignition only, and that CPSC adopt the 

performance tests in the ASTM/UFAC 

voluntary guidelines in the proposed 

rule. 

Other stakeholders, including 

representatives of fire safety 

organizations, state government and 

chemical industry groups, 

recommended that a federal rule contain 

both smoldering and open flame 

requirements, and stated that solutions 

are technically and economically 

feasible. Some commenters opposed any 

course that would reduce the current 

level of safety provided by the existing 

California regulation, Technical Bulletin 

(TB) 117. Other industry groups 

supported adoption of a smoldering 

standard and eventual consideration of 

open flame requirements in the future. 

The California Bureau of Home 

Furnishings and Thermal Insulation 

(BHFTI) recommended that CPSC 

consider adopting elements of the draft 

revised TB–117 published by BHFTI in 

2002. 

In 2004, an industry ‘‘coalition’’ of 

furniture producers and material 

suppliers developed a set of 

performance requirements for 

Commission consideration. The 

coalition proposal included: a small 

open flame test for cover fabrics, based 

on a modification of the Commission’s 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Clothing Textiles (16 CFR Part 1610); 

smoldering and open flame tests for 

filling materials, based on the 2002 draft 

revision of California TB–117; an open 

flame test for fibrous (non-foam) 

‘‘cushion wraps,’’ based on an existing 

U.K. regulation provision; ASTM/UFAC 

smoldering tests for cushion wraps; and 

an unspecified barrier test to be 

developed by CPSC. The staff evaluated 

the industry coalition proposal and 

questioned the effectiveness of some of 

the performance elements. Coalition 

members withdrew support for their 

proposal in 2005 as the CPSC staff was 

continuing its evaluation and 

considering other alternatives. 

Response. The Commission 

recognizes that estimated residential 

upholstered furniture fire losses have 

declined over time, and that relatively 

few losses—e.g., about 10% of the 

addressable deaths—are attributable to 

open flame-ignited fires. Thus, 

relatively few open flame deaths and 

injuries could be averted, even under 

highly effective open flame 

requirements. The Commission notes, 

however, that large numbers of deaths 

and injuries remain. Since a substantial 

majority of these losses result from 

cigarette-ignited fires, the Commission 

agrees that a rule with primary 

emphasis on smoldering can have 

substantial safety benefits. Based on 

CPSC’s laboratory research, the 

Commission also agrees that the ASTM/ 

UFAC test method provides a useful 

basis for a standard, but does not agree 

that the ASTM/UFAC tests as 

implemented in the UFAC voluntary 

program would adequately achieve 

those benefits. While UFAC has 

contributed to fire safety by encouraging 

the use of smolder-resistant materials, 

the program allows the use of smolderprone cover fabrics with polyurethane 

foam, and allows highly smolder-prone 

fabrics in combination with more 

smolder-resistant materials (e.g., 

polyester batting) underneath. These 

conforming combinations are not always 

adequate to prevent fire growth from 

smoldering ignitions. 

CPSC laboratory testing demonstrated 

that smolder-prone fabrics can defeat 

the inherent smolder resistance of 

polyester batting, and that furniture 

mockup assemblies with highly 

smolder-prone fabrics can transition 

from smoldering to flaming combustion 

over time. Further, some lower-priced 

furniture may use UFAC-conforming but 

smolder-prone fabrics without smolder 

resistant batting. In addition, the UFAC 

tests may not be adequate to 

characterize the smoldering behavior of 

all upholstery materials; for example, 

UFAC’s vertical char length 

performance metric does not always 

reflect the downward burning that 

typically occurs in polyurethane foam 

fillings. Additionally, the ASTM/UFAC 

method employs a draft-limiting 

enclosure that was designed to improve 

test repeatability but artificially restricts 

burning of the most smolder-prone 

fabrics. The non-time-limited UFAC 

tests may also adversely affect the 

repeatability of the test results. The 

Commission concludes that adopting 

the ASTM/UFAC tests without 

significant modification would have 

little effect on currently-produced 

upholstered furniture, and would 

therefore probably have negligible safety 

benefits beyond those already achieved 

under the voluntary industry program. 

Thus, the proposed rule has smoldering 

ignition requirements that are somewhat 

different from, and more stringent than, 

those of the UFAC guidelines. The 

proposed standard also contains open 

flame performance requirements for 

barriers; these barriers must protect 

interior filling materials from smolderprone fabrics that may otherwise cause 

furniture to transition from smoldering 

to flaming combustion. 

2. Standardized Test Materials 

Comment. In addition to the CPSC 

staff’s extensive studies on the 

suitability of various standard test 

materials, industry groups contributed 

research and submitted comments on 

the performance of standard cover 

fabrics and standard polyurethane 

foams specified in the CPSC staff’s draft 

standards. Both the staff and industry 

noted the potential effects of 

interdependency of standard test 

materials, and the potential impact on 

test results of the observed variability in 

the performance of certain test 

materials. This variability chiefly 

related to a standard cotton velvet fabric 

specified in the open flame tests of the 

CPSC staff’s 2005 draft standard; to a 

lesser extent, variability was observed in 

the behavior of the standard FR test 

foam used in the smoldering tests of the 

staff’s 2005 draft. The comments 

generally recommended changes to the 

standard test materials or the test 

methods to eliminate the undesirable 

effects of standard material variability. 

Response. The staff’s research 

concluded that the variability identified 

in the performance of the standard 

fabric (and, in some cases, the standard 

non-FR foam) could adversely affect the 

repeatability and reproducibility of 

open flame tests, and could yield 

unacceptably inconsistent results. 

Similar inconsistencies were observed 

in the standard FR foam used in 

smoldering tests. Therefore, the staff 

revised the qualification requirements 

for standard test materials to ensure 

consistency. Further, in view of the 

hazard data and the complexity 

(including standard materials 

variability) of the open flame tests, the 

proposed rule eliminates the open flame 

tests for filling materials entirely, and 

retains standard fabrics for barrier tests 

only. This approach not only simplifies 

the proposed standard, but also 

eliminates the interdependency and 

variability issues raised by the 

commenters. The standard cotton velvet 

test fabric performs consistently in 

barrier smoldering tests, as does the 

standard rayon test fabric in barrier 

open flame tests. Since FR foam would 

not be needed to comply with the 

proposed rule, the rule specifies only 

standard non-FR foam in all tests. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11707 

3. Stringency of Requirements 

Comment. Some industry groups 

opposed the CPSC staff’s 2005 draft 

standard’s open flame filling material 

tests in the absence of an open flame 

fabric test, and asserted that the 2005 

draft’s smoldering and open flame 

filling material requirements were too 

stringent for some lower-density foams 

to meet, even with FR treatment. 

Furniture industry commenters 

subsequently opposed any requirements 

that would be more stringent than those 

of the UFAC guidelines. Many 

commenters supported the concept of a 

barrier test option to afford flexibility to 

manufacturers and fabric suppliers, 

although some furniture industry groups 

opposed an open flame requirement for 

barriers and supported the UFAC 

smoldering requirement instead. 

Regarding the staff’s 2007 draft proposal 

that became this proposed standard, 

some commenters argued that the 

stringent fabric smoldering 

requirements would require substantial 

re-engineering or FR treatment of 

fabrics. A number of commenters also 

recommended that CPSC study the 

effectiveness of reduced ignition 

propensity (IP), or ‘‘fire-safe,’’ cigarettes 

before proposing any flammability 

requirements for upholstered furniture. 

Response. Many of these comments 

pertained to specific provisions of the 

open flame requirements of the CPSC 

staff’s 2005 draft standard. The 

proposed standard does not contain 

open flame requirements for fabrics or 

fillings. As noted previously, CPSC’s 

laboratory research on smoldering 

ignition indicates that several elements 

of the ASTM/UFAC voluntary approach 

would not be very effective at reducing 

the risk. The UFAC guidelines allow 

smolder-prone combinations of 

upholstery materials that would not 

adequately limit fire growth, either from 

smoldering or transition to flaming 

combustion. Since the proposed rule 

relies substantially on cover fabrics or 

barriers to protect interior filling 

materials, the proposed standard 

contains very stringent smoldering 

requirements, and requires that barriers 

provide protection regardless of cover 

fabric ignitability. 

The Commission agrees that a 

significant proportion of predominantly 

cellulosic fabrics (i.e., chiefly cotton 

fiber content) would have to be 

modified or eliminated under the 

proposed standard. The Commission 

notes that these fabrics are the most 

smolder-prone materials used in 

upholstered furniture, and that many 

smolder-prone fabrics can sometimes 

overwhelm the inherent smolder 

resistance of synthetic filling materials 

like polyurethane foam or polyester 

batting. Thus, the proposed 

requirements are applied to those 

materials whose ignition behavior is the 

primary contributor to the risk. 

The proposed standard would not 

prohibit fabric suppliers from using FRtreated fabrics to comply. However, 

furniture and textile industry 

representatives have stated a desire to 

avoid such products for aesthetic and 

cost reasons. Given the availability of 

non-FR alternatives, it is unlikely that 

fabric suppliers would use the FR 

treatments they said consumers would 

reject. 

The Commission agrees that reduced 

ignition propensity cigarettes may be an 

effective means of reducing consumer 

product-related smoldering fires. Such 

reductions would likely occur 

irrespective of CPSC action on 

upholstered furniture. An increasing 

number of states (and Canada) have 

‘‘fire safe cigarette’’ laws that now 

require or will require that only 

reduced-IP cigarettes be available for 

sale. Complying cigarettes would likely 

reduce, but would not eliminate, the 

risk of smoldering ignited upholstered 

furniture fires. The extent of any such 

reduction is unknown. The staff has 

initiated a study to review available 

state data and to conduct laboratory 

tests to evaluate the reduction in 

smoldering ignition propensity 

associated with reduced-IP cigarettes 

compared to conventional cigarettes. 

This work will help the Commission 

evaluate the potential effect of reducedIP cigarettes on upholstered furniture 

fire losses. 

4. Large Scale Validation Testing 

Comment. Some stakeholders 

recommended that CPSC establish a 

correlation between its bench scale tests 

in the proposed rule and the 

performance of complying materials in 

larger or ‘‘full’’ scale tests that more 

reasonably represent the seating areas of 

finished articles of upholstered 

furniture. These large scale tests would 

help validate the results and potential 

effectiveness of the bench scale tests. 

Response. The Commission agrees 

that large scale testing is a valuable 

source of information to help 

demonstrate the increased safety the 

proposed standard would provide. To 

supplement the CPSC staff’s bench scale 

testing and limited large scale testing 

performed previously, the staff plans to 

sponsor such large scale tests. The 

Commission can use the results of these 

tests in developing a possible final rule. 

5. Potential Benefits and Costs 

Comment. Some industry groups 

submitted comments about the CPSC 

staff’s draft preliminary regulatory 

analysis of potential benefits and costs 

associated with various regulatory 

alternatives. Most of these comments 

were from organizations that opposed 

various aspects of the CPSC staff’s 2005 

draft standard; some of the comments 

related to the staff’s draft proposal that 

became the proposed standard. 

The comments on the staff’s analysis 

of the 2005 draft standard generally 

asserted that the staff had overestimated 

potential benefits and understated 

potential costs. A 2006 furniture 

industry report on the staff’s analysis of 

the 2005 draft standard and alternatives 

criticized the statistical methodology 

used to develop national fire loss 

estimates, and recommended different 

methods that would generally result in 

lower estimates of potential benefits of 

a flammability rule. The report also 

questioned other aspects of the staff’s 

estimation of potential economic 

benefits of a standard, positing that staff 

overstated benefits by using 

effectiveness estimates and value-of-life 

estimates that were too high, discount 

rates that were too low, and incorrect 

assumptions about the distribution of 

smolder-prone furniture fabrics among 

smoking vs. non-smoking households. 

The 2006 industry report also asserted 

that the staff understated costs to filling 

material suppliers and furniture 

manufacturers and importers, and 

recommended that the staff’s sensitivity 

analysis consider all combinations of 

factors affecting benefits and costs 

unless those factors were mutually 

exclusive. Manufacturers of 

polyurethane foam raised some of the 

same cost issues, and discussed 

anticipated difficulties in producing 

consistently-complying foams at the 

lower densities often used in 

upholstered arms and other areas of 

furniture. 

Regarding the CPSC staff’s 2007 draft 

proposal, some textile industry 

representatives criticized the emphasis 

on cover fabric performance, and 

expressed concern that the standard 

would not regulate filling material 

performance. They also expressed 

concern that difficulties in modifying 

many fabrics, combined with the cost of 

‘‘double-upholstering’’ furniture to 

incorporate interior barriers, may lead 

suppliers to use FR treatments to 

comply. One report prepared for an 

environmental group recommended that 

CPSC include in its analysis of the 2007 

draft estimates of economic losses from 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

increased cancer risks associated with 

FR filling material additives. 

Several stakeholders recommended 

that CPSC consider the effect of reduced 

ignition propensity (IP), or ‘‘fire-safe’’

cigarettes on the potential benefits of a 

possible upholstered furniture 

flammability standard. One report 

prepared for an environmental group 

presented an alternative calculation of 

benefits incorporating some different 

assumptions about reduced-IP cigarette 

effectiveness than those made by the 

CPSC staff in 2006. Some industry 

commenters suggested that as reducedIP cigarettes came into wider use, a 

standard for upholstered furniture 

would no longer have net benefits to the 

public. 

Response. Regarding fire loss 

estimation methodologies, the CPSC 

staff noted several biases and errors in 

the industry report’s approach that 

would misrepresent the estimates of fire 

losses. The 2006 industry report’s 

criticism of the staff’s method did not 

consider the proper allocation of fire 

incidents with unknown fire causes. 

Further, the indirect estimating method 

recommended by the industry report 

incorrectly used estimates of the 

number of fires to estimate death and 

injuries, thereby introducing bias and 

understating deaths. The CPSC staff’s 

method correctly used death and injury 

counts weighted with probability-based 

estimates for fire deaths and injuries. 

Another method suggested by the 

industry report wrongly excluded some 

in-scope deaths from the body of data 

used to make the estimates. The use of 

these recommended alternative methods 

would significantly understate fire 

losses, and would thereby understate 

the potential benefits of a flammability 

rule. 

Regarding benefits projections, the 

preliminary regulatory analysis of the 

proposed rule estimated the monetary 

value of potential benefits using 

estimates of effectiveness based on 

CPSC laboratory tests of upholstered 

furniture mockup assemblies 

constructed with ignition resistant 

fabrics or barriers, and using 

adjustments to reflect the projected mix 

of products on the market and other 

factors. Large scale tests will help 

support the effectiveness estimates. 

However, the Commission staff has 

ample experience to date with 

upholstery material testing to estimate 

that the proposed rule would likely be 

highly effective (about 60%) at reducing 

fire deaths, injuries and property 

damage. Even considering the 

effectiveness estimates for the CPSC 

staff’s 2005 draft standard, there is no 

basis for applying effectiveness rates for 

the U.K. regulations to a CPSC rule. 

Further, the sensitivity analysis in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis 

accounts for uncertainty in the 

estimates. 

The Commission staff estimated the 

present value of future safety benefits 

using discount rates (3% and 7%) 

recommended by the Office of 

Management and Budget in its guidance 

on regulatory analyses. Also, CPSC’s 

statistical value of life estimate ($5 

million) and sensitivity analysis range 

($3–7 million) is consistent with values 

cited in the economic literature and 

widely used in regulatory decisionmaking. 

Regarding the distribution of 

upholstered furniture constructed with 

smolder prone fabrics among smoking 

vs. non-smoking households, the 

preliminary regulatory analysis assumed 

that furniture fabric types are 

distributed evenly among households. 

Smolder prone fabrics are often, but not 

always, used on the very high-priced, 

decorator furniture more commonly 

found in higher-income households that 

tend less often to be smoking 

households. However, anticipated 

market trends include potential future 

increases in predominantly-cotton 

fabrics in more moderately-priced 

furniture, especially among imports, 

which tends to be lower in price than 

domestic products. To the extent that 

furniture with smolder prone fabrics is 

more often found in higher-income 

households with lower smoking 

prevalence, the benefits of a 

flammability rule could be reduced 

somewhat. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis notes in its sensitivity analysis 

that the likely impact on benefits would 

be small. 

The sensitivity analysis in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis 

considers the impact of a variety of 

factors on potential benefits and costs. 

Varying more than one factor at a time 

is generally appropriate when those 

factors are highly correlated, rather than 

whenever they are not mutually 

exclusive, as the 2006 industry report 

suggested. The sensitivity analysis does 

take into account some combinations of 

factors, but not all factors that could 

conceivably affect benefits and costs. 

However, even if all of the combinations 

of possible factors were considered 

together, estimated net benefits of the 

proposed standard would still total $100 

million or more from a year’s 

production of complying upholstered 

furniture. 

The staff considered likely cost 

impacts on fabric, filling material and 

other upholstery material suppliers in 

analyzing the potential impacts of the 

proposed standard. Cost estimates were 

generally reported directly as provided 

by firms in the industry sectors affected 

although some cost estimates varied 

significantly among firms. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis 

recognized several areas of cost concern, 

including low-density polyurethane 

foam and loose filling materials (for the 

staff’s 2005 draft standard) and certain 

100% cotton fabrics (for the 2007 draft). 

The staff analysis noted that while most 

upholstered furniture fabrics would 

meet the proposed standard without 

modification, more than half of all 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics may 

fail the proposed standard fabric 

smoldering test. These smolder-prone 

fabrics are typically used with synthetic 

filling materials that would otherwise be 

generally smolder resistant; thus, the 

proposed standard targets those fabrics 

contributing most to the risk of 

smoldering ignition. 

The staff also noted that some of the 

more expensive decorator fabrics that 

would fail the proposed fabric 

smoldering test already are used in 

furniture that employs multiple layers 

of upholstery materials, or ‘‘double 

upholstering.’’ Decorative fabric 

suppliers have long supported a barrier 

option for use with non-complying 

fabrics. For most articles of upholstered 

furniture, the barrier option 

incorporated into the proposed standard 

would involve substituting complying 

barriers for existing interior fabrics or 

battings; this would amount to a ‘‘dropin replacement’’ of existing components 

for most barriered furniture, and would 

not require significant additional 

assembly labor costs. 

The preliminary regulatory analysis 

estimates costs based on the assumption 

that some or all non-complying fabrics 

not used with barriers would be FR 

treated; however, it is unlikely that a 

significant proportion of fabrics would 

actually be treated; thus, material costs 

may be lower than estimated in the 

analysis. Compliance costs associated 

with re-engineering some heavierweight, 100% cellulosic fiber fabrics 

may be significant for some firms, 

although fiber content modifications are 

made routinely by producers 

(sometimes as often as every six 

months) to reflect style trends in the 

market. Blended-fiber fabrics in 

particular could probably be readily 

modified without difficulty or 

significant disruption. 

Under the staff’s draft 2005 standard, 

FR foam fillings would likely be used to 

comply. One of the FRs currently used 

in foams meeting the existing California 

TB–117 may pose cancer and noncancer chronic health risks. Pending 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11709 

further study of these and other FR 

chemicals, the preliminary regulatory 

analysis of alternatives assumed that 

hazardous FRs would not be used to 

comply, and therefore did not include a 

calculation of possible disbenefits 

associated with potential use of any 

potentially hazardous filling material 

FRs. The proposed standard would not 

require the use of any FRs in foam or 

other interior filling materials. 

The Commission considered the 

potential impact of reduced-IP 

cigarettes, and continues to study this 

matter. State requirements for such 

cigarettes may reduce upholstered 

furniture fire losses over time 

irrespective of CPSC action. The extent 

of the reduction is unknown. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis does 

specifically account for possible risk 

reductions associated with reduced-IP 

cigarettes. If, for example, reduced-IP 

cigarettes reduced the level of benefits 

of the proposed rule to half the 

estimated level, then projected net 

benefits would be reduced from $367–

387 million to $155–177 million per 

year’s worth of complying furniture 

production. Even at a 70% benefit 

reduction, estimated net benefits of the 

proposed rule would still approach 

$100 million. 

6. Potential Use of FR Chemicals 

Comment. The Commission received 

a number of comments either opposing 

or supporting the potential use of FR 

chemical technologies to meet a 

possible flammability rule. Most of 

these comments related to the staff’s 

previous, 2005 draft standard, which 

would have required that resilient, 

fibrous and loose filling materials 

(typically made of polyurethane foam or 

polyester fiber) be open flame resistant. 

Some comments specifically opposed 

the use of polybrominated diphenyl 

ethers (PBDEs), and cited studies on the 

potential health and environmental 

risks related to these compounds. At 

least one of the major filling material 

FRs, penta-BDE, that was previously 

used to meet California TB–117’s open 

flame requirements, has been 

discontinued. While most fillings would 

be FR-treated under the 2005 draft, the 

proposed standard does not contain 

filling material requirements, and FR 

additives would not be needed to 

comply. 

Some environmental groups opposed 

any new regulations that may add to the 

environmental burden of FR chemicals, 

especially halogenated FRs containing 

bromine or chlorine. They contended 

that since some FRs are persistent in the 

environment, bioaccumulative in 

animals and potentially toxic to 

humans, and since there is a lack of data 

on some aspects of the potential effects 

on human health and environmental 

risks, the Commission should not 

encourage the use of these chemicals. 

Some of these groups supported the 

furniture industry position that CPSC 

should impose only smoldering ignition 

requirements, on the presumption that 

FRs would not be needed to meet these 

requirements. The environmental 

groups strongly supported the staff’s 

2007 draft proposal that became this 

proposed standard. 

Furniture and filling material 

producers opposed significant increases 

in FR usage on the basis that their 

workers could be exposed to more FRs 

released from component materials. 

They were also concerned that state and 

local environmental regulations may 

curtail the availability of economically 

feasible FRs and may adversely affect 

manufacturers’ ability to recycle scrap 

materials. Furniture and fabric 

manufacturers also contended that, in 

view of recent adverse publicity, 

consumers would prefer not to risk 

exposure to potentially toxic FRs. Some 

representatives of fabric suppliers have 

also expressed concern that any smolder 

resistance requirements more stringent 

than those in the UFAC voluntary 

guidelines would force many firms to 

use FR treatments on predominantly 

cotton fabrics to comply. 

Chemical producers stated that safe 

and effective FR solutions are available 

to address the furniture risk. They noted 

that non-halogenated alternatives for 

filling materials are currently being 

offered or developed, as are ‘‘inherentlyFR’’ fiber barriers that do not present a 

significant likelihood of consumer 

exposure. 

Response. CPSC developed the 

proposed standard mindful of the 

continuing uncertainty about potential 

health and environmental effects of FR 

chemical usage, with an objective of 

achieving significant reductions in fire 

deaths and injuries from upholstered 

furniture fires caused by smoking 

materials while minimizing reliance on 

FR additives in fabrics and filling 

materials to meet that objective. While 

the available scientific data are 

sufficient to show that some FRs would 

not present significant health or 

environmental risks, the Commission 

agrees that insufficient data are 

available to be reasonably sure that 

other FRs would not present health risks 

if used in upholstered furniture. The 

staff’s health risk assessment for foam 

filling materials concluded that the 

polyurethane foam FR most widely used 

to meet California TB–117 may not 

present chemical risks to consumers but 

identified significant data gaps; the risk 

assessment further indicated that 

another currently used filling material 

FR may present both cancer and noncancer risks to consumers. On the other 

hand, the CPSC staff’s health risk 

assessment for barriers concluded that 

several commercially available 

technologies, including inherently-FR 

fiber products, could be used without 

presenting appreciable health risks to 

the public. 

Under the proposed standard, neither 

fabrics nor filling materials would need 

to incorporate FR additives to achieve 

compliance. While FR-treated fabrics 

would not be prohibited, many fabric 

suppliers have indicated they would 

likely either modify the fiber content or 

construction of their most smolder 

prone fabrics, or continue to offer noncomplying fabrics for use exclusively 

with complying barriers in the finished 

article of furniture. Thus, the 

Commission anticipates that FR fabrics 

would be the least likely means of 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

Barriers could incorporate FR 

treatments, but barrier suppliers have 

reported that they would likely offer 

inherently-FR fiber materials that do not 

pose a risk of potential exposure for 

upholstered furniture applications, 

similar to those products designed to 

meet the Commission’s open flame rule 

for mattresses (16 CFR part 1633). 

Barriers are projected to be used in only 

about 5% of all upholstered furniture; 

most of this usage would be in designer 

or higher-priced furniture for which the 

relatively higher cost of barriers would 

not be a significant factor. 

The Commission plans to monitor the 

progress of ongoing studies on FR 

chemicals and to consider the results of 

those studies as the regulatory process 

continues. At the request of the staff, the 

National Toxicology Program (NTP) of 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services has undertaken a review of 

several FRs that could be used to meet 

CPSC flammability rules. The NTP 

review will be a relatively long-term 

project that contributes to the overall 

level of knowledge about FR chemicals 

among scientists and regulators. 

H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

The Commission has preliminarily 

determined to issue a rule establishing 

a flammability standard addressing the 

ignition of upholstered furniture. 

Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that the 

Commission prepare a preliminary 

regulatory analysis for this action and 

that it be published with the proposed 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). The following 

discussion, extracted from the staff’s 

memorandum titled ‘‘Preliminary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11710 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

4U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02–

311–337121, ‘‘Upholstered Household Furniture 

Manufacturing: 2002,’’ September 2004. 

5U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Value of Product Shipments: 2005, 

Annual Survey of Manufactures, November 2006. 

6U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02–

31SR–1, ‘‘Concentration Ratios: 2002,’’ May 2006. 

7Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the 

United States Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy which is available online at 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html. 

8U.S. Department of Commerce data. 

9U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. 

International Trade Commission data (c.i.f. cost 

basis). 

Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed 

Flammability Rule to Address Ignitions 

of Upholstered Furniture,’’ addresses 

this requirement. 

1. Introduction 

The history of this rulemaking is 

discussed in Section A, Background, of 

this preamble. This Preliminary 

Regulatory Analysis discusses the 

impacts of provisions specified in the 

Commission’s proposed standard for 

upholstered furniture. It provides 

information on the products and 

industries that are likely to be affected 

by actions taken to reduce upholstered 

furniture fires. The analysis also 

discusses potential costs and benefits 

associated with requirements of the 

proposed standard and reasonable 

alternatives. This analysis also discusses 

potential effects on small firms and 

other market impacts. 

2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and 

Provisions 

The proposed standard contains 

smoldering ignition performance 

requirements for cover fabrics, and 

smoldering and open flame performance 

requirements for interior fire barriers (if 

they are used as the method of 

compliance). The proposed standard 

applies to finished or ready-to-assemble 

articles of upholstered furniture (such as 

upholstered sofas, loveseats, sofa beds, 

rockers, recliners, and other chairs) that 

are: primarily intended for indoor use in 

residences; constructed with an 

upholstered seating area, comprised of a 

contiguous upholstered seat and back or 

arm(s); and manufactured or imported 

after the effective date. 

The proposed standard offers 

manufacturers two alternative methods 

to produce complying furniture. 

Furniture items can comply by being 

made with upholstery cover materials 

that pass the cover material smoldering 

ignition resistance test (designated as 

‘‘Type I upholstered furniture’’ in the 

proposed standard). Alternatively, 

manufacturers may comply with the 

proposed standard by using a barrier 

material under the upholstery fabric that 

passes the standard’s applicable barrier 

tests (‘‘Type II upholstered furniture’’). 

This option allows manufacturers to use 

non-complying upholstery fabrics. 

3. Products and Industries Potentially 

Affected 

The largest class of furniture products 

that would be affected is upholstered 

furniture on wood frames and dual 

purpose sleep furniture such as sofa 

beds, commonly bought for use in living 

rooms and family rooms. Other types of 

affected products include upholstered 

metal frame, reed, and rattan furniture. 

Products referred to as ‘‘Household 

Upholstered Furniture’’ by the Census 

Bureau are classified in code 337121 of 

the North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS). This 

classification includes production of 

upholstered furniture on frames made of 

wood, metal, or other materials, as well 

as dual-purpose sleep furniture, such as 

convertible sofa beds. The 2002 

Economic Census reports that 1,686 U.S. 

companies (with 1,946 establishments) 

manufactured upholstered household 

furniture or dual-purpose sleep 

furniture as their primary product.4

Many other firms may also produce 

upholstered furniture as secondary 

products. 

The Economic Census reports that the 

value of shipments of upholstered 

household furniture by U.S. firms in 

2002 was $10.3 billion. The Annual 

Survey of Manufactures reported value 

of product shipments of $10.0 billion in 

2003 and $9.55 billion in 2004.5 The 

value of product shipments for 2005 

was reported by the Census Bureau to 

have totaled $9.9 billion. 

Although there are a large number of 

upholstered furniture manufacturers, 

the top four companies accounted for 

nearly 35 percent of the total value of 

household upholstered furniture 

shipments in 2002 (the latest year for 

which industry concentration ratio data 

are available); the 50 largest companies 

accounted for about 67 percent.6

Reports from the trade press indicate 

that the industry has become more 

concentrated in the last ten years. 

Several firms have ceased operations; 

others have merged with larger 

companies through buyouts. The 

consolidation included Furniture 

Brands International’s acquisition of 

HDM Furniture Industries (which 

included Henredon and Drexel Heritage) 

in 2001, and La-Z-Boy’s acquisition of 

Ladd in January 2000 and Bauhaus and 

Alexvale in 1999. La-Z-Boy is the 

number one upholstered furniture 

manufacturer (by dollar volume), and 

Ladd, Bauhaus, and Alexvale all 

previously ranked in the top 30. 

Furniture Brands International is the 

second-leading domestic manufacturer 

of upholstered furniture, and companies 

it acquired were previously part of 

number four-ranked LifeStyle 

Furnishings, International, Ltd. 

The industry also includes many 

small companies and establishments. 

The 2002 Economic Census reports that 

only 29 percent of upholstered furniture 

establishments (564 of 1,946) had 20 or 

more employees, and only 10 percent 

(200 establishments) had 100 or more. 

By some measures, such as the U.S. 

Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) definition for qualification for 

small business loans, a furniture 

manufacturing company is considered 

to be ‘‘small’’ if it has fewer than 500 

employees (at all of its establishments). 

This definition encompassed more than 

97 percent of firms in the industry in 

2002.7

Exports of upholstered furniture had 

a value of about $285 million in 2005, 

or almost 3 percent of the total value of 

shipments.8 The value of imports of 

products categorized by the Census 

Bureau as NAICS 337121 was $2,792 

million in 2005.9 Therefore, there were 

net imports of about $2.5 billion. With 

estimated domestic shipments of $9.9 

billion, these net imports resulted in 

total apparent consumption of 

upholstered furniture in 2005 (domestic 

shipments plus imports, minus the 

value of exports) of about $12.4 billion. 

Imports have grown in recent years, 

accounting for about 22 percent of the 

value of total apparent consumption of 

residential upholstered furniture in 

2005. By way of comparison, about 10 

percent of the value of apparent 

consumption of upholstered household 

furniture in 1999 was imported. The 

leading country of origin is China, 

which accounted for about 52 percent of 

the value of imports in 2005 and nearly 

63 percent of the value of imports in 

2006. Mexico accounted for about 11 

percent of imports in 2006; Italy about 

8 percent, and; Canada about 5 percent. 

These four countries accounted for 86 

percent of the total value of imported 

upholstered furniture in 2006. 

The importance of China as a source 

for imports has grown significantly in 

recent years. China supplanted Italy as 

the leading country of origin in 2003, 

and by 2006 the value of imports from 

China was almost 6 times that of the 

second-ranked country of origin, 

Mexico. Italy had been the number one 

source for upholstered furniture imports 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11711 

10 Industry analyst, Jerry Epperson, reported in 

Furniture Today, December 12, 2005. p. 66. 11Heiden Associates, Inc., ‘‘Report on Survey of 

UFAC Members re: Compliance with Upholstered 

Furniture Cigarette Ignition Flammability 

Standard,’’ December 15, 1994. 

12Handbook of Furniture Manufacturing & 

Marketing, Volume 9, Wholesaling, AKTRIN 

Research Institute and High Point University, May 

1994. 

13U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02–

441–09 ‘‘Furniture Stores: 2002,’’ August 2004. 

14 Including the Directory of Manufacturers 

published by the former industry association, the 

American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI). 

15Culp, Inc., Annual Company report for the 

fiscal year ended April 29, 2007. 

16 ‘‘U.S. fabric producers still standing despite 

import wave.’’ Furniture/Today, Cahners 

Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 2, 2003. 

17 ‘‘Mastercraft buy puts Joan at top.’’ Furniture/ 

Today, Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 

1998. 

for many years. The majority of units 

from both China and Italy in 2004 

reportedly were upholstered in 

leather.10 Although much of the gain in 

China’s market share has been at the 

expense of Italian imports, some of the 

furniture imported from China is from 

plants that have been established by 

several major Italian firms. China has 

been the leading source of wood (nonupholstered) furniture imports and its 

growth as a source of upholstered 

furniture is expected to continue. 

In addition to affecting manufacturers 

of residential upholstered furniture 

typically found in living room and 

family rooms, the proposed standard 

also includes dining room and kitchen 

chairs within its scope if they are made 

with contiguously upholstered seats and 

backs. Similarly upholstered desk chairs 

purchased for household use are also 

covered by the standard. Dining chairs 

are generally products of firms classified 

in the wood household furniture 

industry, NAICS 337122. The Economic 

Census reports that 4.8 million wood 

dining room chairs were shipped in 

1997, with a value of shipments totaling 

about $526 million. In 2002, shipments 

fell to 2.9 million chairs, with a value 

of about $446 million. The decline in 

domestic shipments is attributable to 

significant increases in imports of wood 

furniture from China and other 

countries. 

Census data are not reported 

separately for upholstered and nonupholstered dining chairs. In 1994, an 

industry-sponsored study surveyed 

participants in the voluntary industry 

program to improve the cigarette 

ignition resistance of furniture that was 

developed by the Upholstered Furniture 

Action Council (UFAC). Among the 

firms surveyed were manufacturers of 

upholstered dining room and kitchen 

seating. The study report estimated that 

the total value of shipments of such 

furniture that complied with the UFAC 

Program (and, therefore, had 

upholstered seats) was about $250 

million for 1993.11 Based on the value 

of 1992 shipments ($580 million), 

perhaps 3 to 4 million upholstered 

dining chairs were shipped by these 

UFAC participants. A great majority of 

these items may not have had 

upholstered backs, or they had 

upholstered backs that were not 

contiguous with upholstered seats. 

Other firms that are not participants in 

the UFAC Program also manufacture 

upholstered dining furniture. Given the 

limitations of the market data, the 

number of dining chairs produced 

annually that fall within the scope of 

the proposed standard cannot be 

estimated with much precision, 

although the total number of units is 

thought to be relatively small. 

Annual domestic retail sales of all 

types of living room and family room 

upholstered furniture total about 30 to 

33 million units with a value of over 

$20 billion. Furniture manufacturers, 

especially smaller firms, commonly 

market their products through 

independent sales representatives who 

provide information on the market, and 

get and service new retail accounts for 

manufacturers. Recently, some 

manufacturers have reduced their 

reliance on independent representatives 

by employing their own salespeople. 

Besides purchasing from 

manufacturers through independent 

sales representatives or the 

manufacturers’ own sales staff, retailers 

may purchase furniture from wholesale 

furniture distributors. These 

wholesalers purchase from perhaps 25 

to 30 manufacturers of different types 

and styles of furniture. The sales staffs 

of the wholesalers then call on retailers 

within their areas. Dealing through local 

wholesalers that stock an assortment of 

furniture, and that also offer competitive 

prices, credit, and other services, is 

advantageous to many retailers, 

particularly smaller firms.12

According to the 2002 Census of 

Retail Trade, 19,403 retail 

establishments carried upholstered 

furniture as a product line.13 Retail 

prices of upholstered furniture fall into 

a very broad range, depending on 

materials and manufacturing techniques 

used. Larger retailers are more likely to 

purchase directly from furniture 

manufacturers, and smaller firms are 

more likely to purchase through 

wholesale distributors. Increasingly in 

recent years, retailers have reportedly 

devoted more floor space to private 

labeled furniture imported directly from 

foreign manufacturers. In response, 

several of the larger domestic furniture 

manufacturers have opened or 

expanded their own retail outlets. 

A review of trade publications 

indicates that approximately 100 to 200 

domestic manufacturers derive a 

significant share of their revenues from 

fabric for residential upholstered 

furniture.14 This number includes 

textile mills that produce finished 

upholstery fabric and textile finishers 

that purchase unfinished goods and 

perform additional processes, such as 

printing and dyeing. Like the 

upholstered furniture manufacturing 

industry, the 1990s saw consolidation of 

firms specializing in upholstery fabric 

production, with larger firms buying out 

competitors or divisions of competitors. 

However, in just the last few years the 

U.S. industry has been shaken by the 

decreased demand for domesticallyproduced fabric as a result of increased 

competition from imported upholstery 

fabric, the increased popularity of 

leather upholstery, and the dramatic 

increase in consumption of upholstered 

furniture imported from China. One of 

the largest marketers of upholstery 

fabrics in the U.S. reported that the 

trend to greater foreign competition and 

the entry of more converters of 

upholstery fabric (companies that 

purchase and resell fabrics) has resulted 

in greater fragmentation of the 

upholstery fabric industry in recent 

years, with lower barriers to entry, and 

an increase in competition based on 

price.15

Interior fabric revenues of the top 10 

firms totaled more than $1.9 billion in 

2002, based on a trade press survey.16

These revenues included sales of fabrics 

other than those used in residential 

upholstery. A similar survey found that 

the top 10 upholstery fabric mills had 

combined revenues from interior fabric 

shipments of $2.4 billion.17 In addition 

to declining sales for the leading U.S. 

upholstery fabric manufacturers, the 

difficult state of the industry is 

evidenced by recent bankruptcies of 

firms that were once industry leaders, 

such as Joan Fabrics (previously the 

number one upholstery manufacturer) 

and Quaker Fabric (previously the 

number three firm). Both of these firms 

ceased operations and their production 

facilities were liquidated in 2007. 

Textile mills that make upholstery 

fabrics as their primary products are 

included in the North American NAICS 

code 313210. Of 663 firms in NAICS 

313210 in 2002, only 63 (about 10 

percent) had 500 or more employees. 

About 65 percent of the firms had fewer 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11712 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

18Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the 

United States Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy which is available online at 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html. 

19 Ibid. 

20U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, 

Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray): 2004. MQ313T(04)–5. 

June 2005. 

21U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, 

Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray): 2002. MQ313T(02)–5. 

June 2003. 

22Ciprus Limited, LLC. The North American 

Market for Contract & Residential Upholstery 

Fabric, 2001. 

23According to industry sources, an average of 

approximately 7 linear yards of fabric is needed to 

upholster chairs and 11 to 15 yards are needed for 

sofas. Based on about 31.5 million annual unit 

shipments (of which perhaps about 53 percent are 

sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats and about 47 percent 

are other chairs), estimated annual upholstery 

material requirements are about 321 million linear 

yards (about 217 million yards for sofas, sofabeds 

and loveseats plus 104 million yards for chairs). 

24U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, 

Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing: 

2002, EC02–311–313311. September 2004. 

25La-Z-Boy, Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal 

Year Ended April 28, 2007 (Form 10–K.) Page 5. 

26 Keyser Ciprus Limited, op. cit., p. 40. 

27Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal 

year ended April 29, 2007. (Reportedly includes 

fabrics produced at Culp’s Shanghai manufacturing 

plant and production sourced from other Asian 

firms.) 

28Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal 

year ended April 23, 2000. 

29Andrews, Susan M. ‘‘Richloom moves 

production to China.’’ Furniture/Today, December 

18, 2006. 

30Quaker Fabric Corp. Annual Report for the 

Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006 (Form 10–K.). 

than 20 employees.18 The SBA 

considers firms with fewer than 1,000 

employees to be small businesses for the 

purposes of programs administered by 

that agency. Although these data are 

indicative of the sizes of firms involved 

in the production of furniture 

upholstery fabrics, NAICS 313210 

encompasses many firms that produce 

fabrics other than furniture upholstery. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that nearly all 

manufacturers of upholstery fabrics 

could be considered small businesses 

under SBA guidelines. 

Fabric finishers also tend to be small. 

Finishers are firms that receive 

unfinished fabrics (‘‘greige goods’’ or 

‘‘gray goods’’) and perform additional 

manufacturing processes (e.g., printing, 

dyeing, backcoating, needle-punching, 

and stain-guarding). Fabrics may be 

purchased by the finishers, or finished 

under contract to other firms that 

supply the fabrics. Fabric finishers are 

classified in NAICS code 313311. Of 

1,016 broadwoven fabric finishing firms 

in NAICS 313311 in 2002, only 30 (3 

percent) had 500 or more employees.19

Only a few firms currently apply FR 

treatments to upholstery fabrics. 

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 

U.S. upholstery fabric production in 

2004 was 284 million square yards 

(which is the equivalent of 189 million 

linear yards).20 This production was 43 

percent lower than 2002’s reported 

production of 499 million square yards 

(332 million linear yards) of upholstery 

fabric.21 The number of looms in 

operation for the production of these 

fabrics totaled 2,610 at the end of 2004, 

down 20 percent from 3,098 looms at 

the end of 2002. The major end-use 

markets for upholstery production are in 

upholstered furniture and automobile 

manufacturing. Upholstery fabrics are 

also used in the manufacture of window 

treatments and other home textiles. 

Based on a survey of upholstered 

furniture manufacturers by Ciprus, Ltd., 

about 233 million linear yards of 

upholstery fabric were consumed in the 

production of household furniture in 

2001.22 This total does not include 

leather and vinyl upholstery, which are 

estimated to have comprised about 30 

percent of all furniture upholstery 

materials used in 2001. Therefore, total 

upholstery use for the domestic 

manufacture of residential upholstered 

furniture was about 333 million linear 

yards. Estimates of total annual 

upholstery fabric consumption based on 

average requirements for chairs and 

sofas/loveseats are 225 million linear 

yards.23

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic 

Census report, Upholstered Household 

Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, 

included information on the costs of 

upholstery fabrics and other materials 

used in the production of upholstered 

household furniture in that year. The 

report placed the delivered cost of 

woven cotton upholstery fabrics 

(excluding ticking) at $312 million and 

the delivered cost of other woven 

upholstery fabrics, such as those made 

of rayon, nylon, and polyester 

(excluding ticking) at $802 million.24

The combined total delivered cost of 

upholstery fabric of $1,114 million was 

about 22 percent of the total delivered 

cost of all materials used in upholstered 

furniture manufacturing in 2002 (which 

was, according to the Census Bureau, 

$5,107 million). Other upholstery cover 

materials include leather, which is not 

reported as a separate material category 

by the Bureau of the Census, and coated 

and laminated fabrics, which had a 

delivered cost of about $185 million in 

2002. In its 2007 Annual Report, La-ZBoy, the largest manufacturer of 

upholstered furniture in the U.S., 

reported that purchased cover materials 

(primarily fabric and leather) accounted 

for about 28 percent of the total cost of 

raw materials for its upholstery group.25

Until recent years, relatively little 

upholstery fabric was imported. A 

report by Keyser Ciprus, Ltd., estimated 

that 8 million linear yards of residential 

upholstery fabric were imported in 

1997. That accounted for approximately 

2 percent of total consumption of 

upholstery fabric for residential 

furniture production in that year.26

However, as noted above, foreign 

upholstery fabric production facilities 

(located primarily in China) have 

expanded operations and imports of 

upholstery fabrics have grown 

substantially. 

Much of the foreign production is 

from facilities that are owned or 

operated in partnership with U.S. textile 

firms. For example, Culp, Inc., reported 

that almost 60 percent of their sales of 

upholstery fabrics in their fiscal year 

ended April 29, 2007, consisted of 

fabrics produced in plants outside the 

U.S., compared to 17 percent of sales 

just two years before.27 Culp owns and 

operates four upholstery plants in 

Shanghai, China, and markets other 

fabrics from third party sources which 

are also located in China. The firm only 

has one remaining upholstery fabric 

plant in the U.S., down from fourteen in 

2000.28 Culp’s experience in shifting 

production to foreign plants has also 

been reported by other U.S. upholstery 

fabric manufacturers. In January 2007 

Richloom Fabrics Group shifted 

production of its Berkshire Weaving 

upholstery line from its South Carolina 

plant to a facility in Shanghai.29 Quaker 

Fabric Corporation also entered into 

business agreements in recent years 

with Asian firms to produce fabrics it 

designs. Quaker estimated that, 

industry-wide, about 42 percent of total 

domestic upholstery fabric sales 

(excluding automotive fabrics) were 

imported in 2004, versus only 11 

percent in 2002. The company’s 

management believed it was likely that 

the trend continued, and it estimated 

that about 60 percent of furniture 

upholstery fabric sales were imported 

by the end of 2006.30 As noted above, 

Quaker Fabric, which had long been a 

major U.S. producer of upholstery 

fabric, could not successfully adjust its 

operations to meet the recent market 

shifts, and the firm liquidated its 

operations in 2007. 

At least until recent years, exports of 

upholstery fabric were significant for 

many U.S. manufacturers. In the late 

1990s as much as 20 percent of the 

upholstery fabric production by U.S. 

manufacturers in recent years may have 

been exported. As noted above, more 

upholstery fabric is being imported from 

China and other foreign sources in more 

recent years, and some major U.S. fabric 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11713 

31La-Z-Boy. op. cit., p. 4. 

32Culp, Inc. Annual Company report for the fiscal 

year ended April 29, 2007. 

33 Keyser-Ciprus, Ltd. survey (1997) and Ciprus 

Limited, LLC, surveys (2001 and 2006). 

34 ‘‘Jacquards’’ and ‘‘dobbies’’ refer to the types of 

looms and weaves used to produce fabrics. 

Brocades, damasks, velvets, tapestry weaves, and 

matelasses are often jacquard-woven. Dobbie looms 

enable weaving of small, geometric figures as a 

regular pattern. Dobby looms produce patterns that 

are beyond the range of simple looms, but are 

somewhat limited compared to a jacquard loom, 

which has a wider range of pattern capabilities. 

35Ciprus Limited. op. cit. 36M.L. Lahr and B.B. Gordon, Final Report on 

Product Life Model Feasibility and Development 

Study, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, July 14, 

1980. 

37Estimated shipments before 1967 were based 

on the Federal Reserve’s annual furniture 

production index. 

38Based on discussions between industry officials 

and Department of Commerce personnel. 

39Report to the CPSC on the UFAC Voluntary 

Program, Upholstered Furniture Action Council, 

March 21, 1978. 

manufacturers have established 

production facilities in China, or have 

established business relationships with 

Chinese firms to produce fabrics to their 

specifications and designs. These 

market changes could be expected to 

reduce exports by domestic firms from 

previous levels. 

There is a growing practice, especially 

for leather, to purchase fully cut and 

sewn parts from areas outside of the 

United States including but not limited 

to: Argentina, Brazil, China, Italy, 

Thailand and Uruguay. This trend 

should continue given the lower labor 

costs in some of these areas and other 

existing economic conditions. La-Z-Boy 

reports that importing cut and sewn 

leather parts results in savings of 10 to 

20 percent compared to domestic 

purchases and fabrication of these 

parts.31 Cut and sewn ‘‘kits’’ reportedly 

are manufactured to the specifications 

of furniture manufacturers at facilities 

maintained by foreign fabric producers. 

Culp reports that it rapidly expanded its 

cut and sew operations in its Shanghai 

plants.32

CPSC-sponsored surveys of furniture 

manufacturers in 1981, 1984, and 1995, 

and commercial surveys in 1997, 2001, 

and 2006 33 provided information on 

two characteristics of fabrics: fabric type 

and principal fiber (or material) type. 

Fabric Type refers to commonlyaccepted descriptions of the ways in 

which fabrics are manufactured or of 

their distinctive characteristics. For the 

period covered by these surveys, 

manufacturers increased their use of 

jacquard and dobby fabrics, and 

decreased their use of velvet fabrics.34

Usage of cotton prints and flocks 

fluctuated within fairly narrow ranges 

during the period, according to the 

surveys. 

Fiber (or material) Type refers to the 

fibers or materials used in the 

manufacture of the fabrics or 

upholstery. Most upholstery fabric 

fibers are classified as cellulosic (e.g. 

cotton and rayon) or thermoplastic (e.g., 

polyester, polyolefin, and nylon); other 

materials used to make upholstery 

include vinyl (which is coated on a base 

fabric), wool, and leather. Based on the 

2006 Ciprus Limited survey, cellulosic 

fabrics currently account for about 25 

percent of upholstered furniture 

upholstery covering materials. 

Thermoplastic fabrics account for 45 

percent; leather, wool and vinyl-coated 

fabrics account for about 30 percent 

(mostly leather). 

Review of the data on material types 

from the surveys conducted since 1981 

indicates that the most notable changes 

over the years have been the increase in 

use of leather at the expense of both 

cellulosic and thermoplastic fibers. The 

Ciprus survey in 2001 found that about 

30 percent of furniture covering 

materials used in that year was leather, 

significantly greater than found in the 

earlier surveys.35 Fabrics made from 

predominantly cellulosic fibers include 

heavier-weight fabrics (such as 

cellulosic jacquards and velvets) and 

lighter-weight fabrics (mainly cotton 

prints). Analysis of survey data since 

1981 indicates that heavier cellulosic 

fabrics have usually comprised about 15 

to 20 percent of all upholstery covering 

yardage. 

4. Characteristics of Furniture in U.S. 

Households 

The number of furniture units in use 

is estimated with the CPSC Product 

Population Model, based on available 

annual sales data and industry estimates 

of the average product life of furniture.36

Estimates are for sofas, loveseats, 

armchairs, recliners, convertible sofas 

and other upholstered furniture 

commonly found in residential living 

rooms, family rooms, and guest rooms. 

Sales are defined as shipments from 

U.S. manufacturers plus net imports. 

Annual shipment data are available 

from the Economic Census published 

every five years (i.e., 2002, 1997, 1992 

* * *) by the Bureau of the Census. For 

upholstered wood furniture and dualpurpose sleep furniture, the Economic 

Census usually provides information on 

unit shipments, by type (such as sofas, 

sleep sofas, rockers, recliners, and other 

chairs). For product categories for which 

unit shipment data were not available, 

we estimated unit shipments by 

assigning average per unit values to the 

Census data on value of shipments. 

Finally, estimates of net imports were 

added to shipments to estimate the total 

number of upholstered units sold to 

U.S. households. For the years in which 

Economic Census data are not available, 

shipment estimates were based on 

furniture shipment values published by 

the Department of Commerce in the 

Annual Survey of Manufactures.37

The CPSC’s Product Population 

Model uses sales data and information 

on the average product life to estimate 

the numbers of items remaining in use 

in the years following their purchase by 

consumers. The estimated average 

useful life of upholstered furniture 

reportedly ranges from 15 to 17 years.38

Based on the assumption that the 

expected life of a piece of upholstered 

furniture is 16 years, the average 

number of upholstered items in 

household use during 2002–2004 was 

about 447 million pieces. 

Surveys of furniture manufacturers in 

the last several years show the shift 

towards thermoplastic fabrics peaked 

during the period of the mid-1980’s to 

the mid-1990’s. Information provided to 

the CPSC by the Upholstered Furniture 

Action Council (UFAC) showed that a 

significant shift to greater use of 

thermoplastic fabrics began in the 

1950’s, and became more pronounced in 

the 1970’s.39 These data on usage of 

different types of fabrics over the years 

can be used to characterize upholstery 

fabrics found on furniture in U.S. 

households. An estimated 31.2 percent 

of furniture in use in U.S. households 

during the period 2002–2004 was 

covered with fabrics predominantly 

made with cellulosic fabrics; an 

estimated 50.2 percent were covered 

with predominantly thermoplastic 

fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered 

with other materials (mainly leather, 

wool, and vinyl-coated fabrics). 

5. Expected Benefits of the Proposed 

Standard 

The expected benefits of the proposed 

standard are estimated as the reduction 

in the societal costs associated with 

upholstered furniture fires that would 

be prevented by the standard. We 

estimate the benefits in several steps. 

First, the average annual societal costs 

of upholstered furniture fires are 

estimated, based on estimates of the 

aggregate annual costs of fire-related 

deaths, injuries, and property damage. 

These costs are differentiated by 

ignition source (i.e., cigarette vs. open 

flame ignition) and by fabric covering 

type (since different fabrics exhibit 

different ignition propensities). Societal 

costs are also estimated on a ‘‘per 

product in use’’ basis, based on 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11714 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

40For example: Viscusi, W.K., ‘‘Discounting 

Health Effects for Medical Decisions,’’ in Valuing 

Health Care: Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness of 

Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies, ed. 

F.A. Sloan, 123–24. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 1995. Also, Gold, Marthe R., et al., 

Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 1996. 

41Miller, David. ‘‘2002–2004 Fire Loss Estimates 

for Upholstered Furniture.’’ Directorate for 

Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, August 3, 2007 (Draft). The 

Directorate for Epidemiolgy based its estimates on 

a methodology that was refined to address concerns 

raised by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 

a 1999 report, ‘‘Consumer Product Safety 

Commission: Additional Steps Needed to Assess 

Fire Hazards of Upholstered Furniture.’’

42Estimated average property losses of about $65 

million for 2002–2004 (Miller, op. cit.) are 

expressed in 2004 dollars ($70 million) based on 

changes in the Producer Price Index for 

construction materials. 

43 Viscusi, W. Kip, ‘‘The Value of Risks to Life 

and Health,’’ Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 

XXXI, December 1993, pp. 1912–1946. 

44Zamula, William W., ‘‘Costs for Non-Fatal, 

Addressable Residential Civilian Injuries 

Associated with Upholstered Furniture Fires.’’

(Memorandum to Gregory B. Rodgers, AED, EC) 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. September 6, 2007. 

(Costs are estimated in 2005 dollars.) 

45Miller, Ted R., et al., ‘‘Societal Costs of 

Cigarettes Fires,’’ prepared for the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission under the Cigarette 

Safety Act of 1984, August 1993. 

estimates of the numbers of furniture 

items in use. 

Second, since each furniture item is 

expected to remain in use for an average 

of 15 to 17 years, the present value of 

the product’s estimated lifetime fire 

costs is estimated by summing the 

discounted annual costs over the item’s 

expected useful life. The estimated 

annual societal costs that are expected 

to accrue over the furniture item’s 

useful life are discounted at an annual 

rate of 3 percent. This rate is consistent 

with recommendations in the economic 

literature for discounting the costs and 

consequences of health programs.40

Societal costs have also been estimated 

using a 7 percent discount rate, as 

recommended by the Office of 

Management and Budget (in addition to 

3 percent) in its guidance to Federal 

agencies on the use of discounting in 

regulatory analysis (Circular A–4). 

Third, the expected effectiveness of 

the proposed standard (i.e., the 

percentage reduction in fire losses) is 

estimated for each ignition source and 

upholstery cover type. As discussed 

below, effectiveness of the standard at 

reducing societal costs is based on 

judgments regarding improvements 

attributed to fabric treatments and 

effectiveness of barrier materials. 

We begin the analysis by evaluating 

the societal costs of cigarette fires and 

the expected benefits associated with 

preventing these fires. This is followed 

with an evaluation of the societal costs 

and likely benefits associated with the 

prevention of open-flame ignited fires. 

a. Expected Benefits From Reducing 

Cigarette Fire Losses 

Societal costs of furniture fires started 

by cigarettes. The purpose of this 

section is to estimate the societal costs 

of cigarette-related upholstered 

furniture fires to use as the basis for 

estimating the cigarette benefits. In the 

next section, benefits are estimated as 

avoided societal costs. These costs are 

based on fire losses (deaths, injuries and 

property loss) estimated by the CPSC 

Directorate for Epidemiology, which 

relies on fire loss data acquired from the 

National Fire Protection (NFPA) annual 

survey of fire departments and the U.S. 

Fire Administration (USFA) National 

Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). 

The most recent fire data available to 

make such estimates was for the 2002–

2004 time period. Societal cost 

estimates are also differentiated by 

fabric cover types, which (as described 

below) exhibit different cigarette 

ignition propensities. 

According to the CPSC’s Directorate 

for Epidemiology, there was an average 

of 260 addressable civilian deaths and 

320 nonfatal civilian injuries annually 

from fires started by cigarettes during 

the 2002–2004 time frame.41 There was 

also an average of about $73 million 

annually (in 2005 dollars) in property 

losses from cigarette-ignited fires.42 By 

combining the costs associated with 

deaths, injuries, and property damage, 

total societal costs can be estimated. 

For analytic purposes staff assigns a 

value of $5 million as the value of a 

statistical life for the calculation of 

societal costs. The $5 million estimate is 

consistent with the general range of the 

value of a statistical life published in 

the literature, which generally falls in 

the $3 million to $7 million range.43

Multiplying the annual estimate of 

about 260 deaths by the value of a 

statistical life of $5 million yields 

annual fatality costs of $1.3 billion. 

Nonfatal injuries were assigned an 

average cost of $146,740 each. The basis 

for this estimate was the analysis of 

burn injury costs reported in the August 

1993 report ‘‘Societal Costs of Cigarette 

Fires,’’ part of the research sponsored by 

the CPSC under the Fire Safe Cigarette 

Act of 1990.44 45 The $146,740 figure 

represents a weighted average of injury 

costs (including pain and suffering) for 

both hospitalized injuries and injuries 

treated and released. The estimate of 

320 injuries annually results in societal 

costs of about $47 million. 

As noted above, the proposed 

standard would also address about $70 

million annually in property losses from 

fires started by cigarettes, based on 

estimates for the 2002–2004 period. 

Consequently, the total annual costs of 

cigarette-ignited fires addressed by the 

proposed standard amounted to an 

annual average of about $1,420 million 

($1,300 million + $47 million + $73 

million) during the 2002–2004 time 

period. 

Information on the number of 

furniture items (i.e., separate pieces of 

furniture) in use provides a basis for 

estimating the costs of cigarette ignition 

fires on a per unit basis. The average 

estimated number of items of residential 

living room and family room 

upholstered furniture in use during the 

2002–2004 time period was about 447 

million units, based on an expected 

useful product life of 15–17 years. Given 

the annual societal costs and the 

number of furniture units in use, the 

annual societal cost per unit of furniture 

in use, resulting from cigarette ignition, 

amounted to about $3.18 ($1,420 

million/447 million units of furniture). 

This per unit societal cost estimate 

represents an average across all 

furniture items in use. However, 

because different fabric coverings for 

furniture exhibit different ignition 

propensities, we can develop more 

precise estimates of per unit societal 

costs by accounting for the fabric cover. 

Ignition testing of chairs by CPSC staff 

and others over the years has shown 

that the cigarette ignition hazard of 

furniture mainly involves chairs 

covered with fabrics that are 

predominantly woven from cellulosic 

fibers, i.e., cotton and rayon. Chair 

testing done by the CPSC staff and 

California’s Bureau of Home 

Furnishings has shown that chairs 

covered with predominantly 

thermoplastic fabrics (e.g., polyester, 

polypropylene, and nylon) are much 

less likely to ignite from cigarettes. 

Chairs covered with some materials, 

such as leather, vinyl-coated fabrics, 

and wool fabrics are resistant to ignition 

from cigarettes. Given the disparity of 

ignition propensities, some types of 

furniture would be expected to result in 

greater societal costs from fires. 

Information relevant to the 

determination of average ignitability 

and estimation of societal costs for 

furniture covered with different types of 

materials is discussed below. 

The results of the analysis described 

in this section (including estimates of 

market shares by fabric covering, 

estimates of ignition propensities and 

risk by fabric type, and estimates of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11715 

annual societal costs) are summarized in 

Table 1. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.000</GPH>
11716 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

46The Upholstery Fabric Smoldering Ignition Test 

is cigarette ignition testing of fabrics over a standard 

non-flame-retardant polyurethane foam substrate. 

47Tao, Weiying, Ph.D. ‘‘Evaluation of Test 

Method and Performance Criteria for Cigarette 

Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance of Upholstered 

Furniture Materials.’’ Division of Electrical and 

Flammability Engineering, Directorate for 

Laboratory Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. May 2005. 

48UFAC Class I, NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics. 

49NBS Class B cellulosic fabrics. 

Estimates of the types of upholstery 

on furniture pieces found in households 

during 2002–2004 were derived from 

historical data from surveys in various 

years, estimates of annual sales of 

upholstered furniture, and calculations 

of the survival of furniture in years after 

purchase (using the CPSC’s Product 

Population Model). Based on these 

sources, the Directorate for Economic 

Analysis estimates that 50.2 percent of 

the 447 million upholstered furniture 

items that were in use during 2002–

2004 were covered with thermoplastic 

fabrics, 31.2 percent were covered with 

cellulosic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were 

covered with leather, vinyl-coated 

fabrics, or wool fabrics. These market 

shares are shown in Table 1, column 1. 

Note that the market shares in the first 

three rows sum to the 31.2 percent of 

the furniture in use covered with 

cellulosic fabrics. However, because 

extensive testing data show that some 

cellulosic fabrics are more likely to 

ignite than others, this analysis also 

separates cellulosic fabrics into three 

categories according to their ignition 

propensities. The next several 

paragraphs describe this subcategorization of cellulosic fabric 

coverings. 

Testing by the CPSC laboratory using 

the proposed Upholstery Fabric 

Smoldering Ignition Test 46 indicates 

that upholstery cover materials which 

are most likely to fail the test are fabrics 

woven entirely of cellulosic fibers that 

are heavier than eight ounces per square 

yard. These fabrics are assumed to 

include all fabrics that would be 

classified as Class II fabrics under the 

UFAC Program as well as 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics that 

would be classified as Class I fabrics 

under the UFAC Program and Class C 

and D fabrics according to the proposed 

furniture flammability standard fabric 

test method developed by the National 

Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology) in the 1970s. Estimation of 

the percentage of fabrics that would fail 

the fabric test of the proposed standard, 

and assessment of the societal costs 

presented by different types of 

upholstery cover materials are, 

therefore, based on fabric and chair test 

data accumulated over the years. 

Classification of cellulosic fabrics 

according to the test developed by 

UFAC (which classifies fabrics 

according to char length on the vertical 

surface when tested over standard nonFR polyurethane foam) and the test 

developed by NBS (which classifies 

fabrics according to char length when 

tested over a glass fiberboard substrate) 

have been used to categorize the 

ignition performance of cellulosic 

fabrics in this analysis. CPSC laboratory 

analyses since 1980 found that about 82 

percent of cellulosic fabrics tested were 

Class I fabrics according to the fabric 

classification test of the UFAC Program 

(i.e., having a vertical char length of less 

than 1.75 inches), and 18 percent of 

cellulosic fabrics were UFAC Class II 

fabrics (i.e., having a vertical char length 

of 1.75 inches or greater). Assuming the 

tested fabrics were representative of 

cellulosic fabrics, 25.6 percent of all 

fabrics on furniture in use during 2002–

2004 were UFAC Class I (31.2% that 

were covered with cellulosic fabrics × 

82%) and 5.6 percent were UFAC Class 

II (31.2% × 18%). 

Laboratory testing shows that the 

cover material smoldering resistance 

test of the proposed standard is more 

severe than the UFAC Fabric 

Classification Test.47 Therefore, for the 

purposes of this analysis, UFAC Class II 

fabrics are assumed to fail the proposed 

fabric test without changes that would 

improve their ignition resistance. 

Limited testing also indicates that some 

portion of UFAC Class I fabrics will fail 

the fabric test of the proposed standard. 

Twenty-five percent of the Class I 

fabrics tested by the CPSC staff in 1980 

and 1984 were found to be generally 

more ignition-prone Class D fabrics 

according to the NBS fabric 

classification test (i.e., sustaining chars 

of greater than 3 inches when tested 

over glass fiberboard). If we assume that 

such fabrics would fail the proposed 

standard’s fabric test, an estimated 12 

percent of fabrics found on furniture in 

2002–2004 would have failed the test 

(5.6 percent which were UFAC Class II, 

plus 25 percent of the 25.6 percent of 

other cellulosic fabrics which were 

UFAC Class I. (Designated as ‘‘Severely 

Ignition-Prone Cellulosics’’ in Table 1.) 

Fabrics assumed to pass the proposed 

standard include more moderately 

ignition-prone fabrics that are Class I 

according to the UFAC Fabric 

Classification test and Class C according 

to the NBS fabric test (i.e., sustaining 

chars of 1.5—3 inches when tested over 

glass fiberboard), and more ignitionresistant Class B cellulosic fabrics 

according to the NBS fabric test (which 

sustain char lengths of less than 1.5 

inches when tested over glass 

fiberboard). The Class C fabrics 

accounted for an estimated 5.8 percent 

of fabrics found on furniture in 2002–

2004 (22.5 percent of UFAC Class I 

cellulosic fabrics according to CPSC 

staff testing). These fabrics are 

designated as ‘‘Moderately IgnitionProne Cellulosics’’ in Table 1. More 

ignition-resistant NBS Class B fabrics 

are estimated to have comprised 52.5 

percent of UFAC Class I cellulosic 

fabrics, or 13.4 percent of all fabrics and 

covering materials found on upholstered 

items in 2002–2004. These fabrics are 

designated as ‘‘Lower Ignition-Prone 

Cellulosics’’ in Table 1. 

Estimated ignition propensities for 

furniture covered with cellulosic fabrics 

are based on chair testing that was done 

in 1984 and 1994. Evaluating chair test 

results according to UFAC and NBS 

fabric classifications, 58.3 percent of test 

cigarettes were estimated to lead to 

ignitions for chairs covered with UFAC 

Class II fabrics. The estimated ignition 

propensity for test cigarettes on chairs 

covered with UFAC Class I, NBS Class 

D fabrics was 46.6 percent. Combining 

these two severely-ignition-prone fabric 

classes yields an average estimated 

ignition propensity of 52.1 percent 

(weighted by their 2002–2004 market 

shares). Cigarettes placed on furniture 

covered with moderately ignition-prone 

fabrics had an estimated 32.2 percent 

likelihood of resulting in ignition.48

About 10.5 percent of test cigarettes 

were estimated to lead to ignitions for 

chairs covered with less ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics.49 (See column 2 of 

Table 1.) 

Because of less concern with the 

ignition propensity of thermoplastic 

fabrics, ignition testing data for such 

materials are more limited. Expanding 

chair test data to include tests 

conducted in 1980 led to an estimate 

that 1.5 percent of test cigarettes would 

result in ignition for furniture covered 

with thermoplastic fabrics. 

Additionally, based on limited 

laboratory ignition testing data, 

materials such as leather, wool fabrics, 

and vinyl-coated fabrics are assumed to 

be highly resistant to ignition from 

cigarettes. 

The calculation of weighted ignition 

propensities of furniture covered with 

different types of fabrics is the product 

of the estimated market share of 

furniture in use in 2002–2004 for each 

type of fabric and its estimated ignition 

propensity. The estimated weighted 

ignition propensity was 0.063 for items 

covered with severely ignition-prone 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11717 

50UFAC Class II and UFAC Class I/NBS Class D 

fabrics. 51NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics. 52Percent of total risk for each fabric type was 

calculated from estimates of market share and 

ignition propensity that were not rounded. 53Ciprus Limited, op. cit. 

cellulosic fabrics (i.e., 12.0% share of 

the market × 52.1% ignition propensity); 

0.019 for items covered with moderately 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (5.8% × 

32.2%); 0.014 for items covered with 

less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 

(13.4% × 10.5%); and .008 for items 

covered with thermoplastic fabrics 

(50.2% × 1.5%). (See column 3 of Table 

1.) 

The percent of total risk presented by 

furniture covered with different fabric 

types was derived by dividing estimated 

weighted ignition propensities by the 

sum of all weighted ignition 

propensities (which was about .103 for 

furniture in use in 2002–2004). Thus, as 

shown in the table, the more severely 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 50 were 

estimated to account for 60.9 percent of 

the total risk (.063/.103); moderately 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 51

accounted for an estimated 18.0 percent 

of the risk (.019/.103); less ignitionprone cellulosic fabrics accounted for 

about 13.7 percent of the risk (.014/ 

.103); and thermoplastic fabrics 

accounted for about 7.3 percent of the 

risk (.008/.103). (See column 4 of Table 

1.) 52

The average annual societal costs 

associated with cigarette ignitions of 

each fabric type were estimated by 

dividing the product of estimated 

percent of total risk (above) and the total 

estimated average annual societal costs 

associated with cigarette ignition of 

furniture ($1,420 million) by the 

estimated number of units in use during 

2002–2004 with each fabric type (447 

million units in use × estimated market 

share). The average annual societal costs 

were estimated to be $16.08 for items 

covered with severely ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics (60.9% × $1,420 

million/447 million × 12.0%); $9.94 for 

items covered with moderately ignitionprone cellulosic fabrics (18.0% × $1,420 

million/447 million × 5.8%); $3.24 for 

items covered with less ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics (13.4% × $1,420 

million/447 million × 13.7%); and $.46 

for items covered with thermoplastic 

fabrics (7.3% × $1,420 million/447 

million × 50.2%). (See column 5 of 

Table 1.) 

The estimated lifetime societal costs 

per unit of furniture were calculated as 

the present value of the estimated 

annual societal costs over the expected 

product life of the item of furniture. The 

annual expected societal costs of 

cigarette ignition were assumed to apply 

each year that an item of furniture 

remains in household use. The CPSC’s 

Product Population Model was used to 

calculate the likelihood that furniture 

items would remain in use in years after 

purchase. Annual societal costs per unit 

were multiplied by estimated 

probability of survival in subsequent 

years. The estimated stream of future 

expected societal costs were discounted 

to their present values, using a discount 

rate of 3 percent. 

Available data suggest that other 

factors (in addition to changes in 

fabrics) have contributed to a decline in 

fires resulting from cigarette ignition of 

upholstered furniture over time. These 

factors include changes in smokingrelated behavior of individuals, 

increased presence of smoke alarms, 

and changes in furniture filling 

materials. The present value estimates 

were further adjusted to account for an 

expected future decline in smokingrelated fire incidents. This was done by 

forecasting future fire deaths by year, 

based on trends in deaths from cigarette 

ignitions of upholstered furniture 

during 1980–2004, and reducing the 

expected societal costs of cigarette 

ignited fires by the projected percentage 

reduction. This analysis found that 

expected lifetime societal costs, 

discounted to their present value using 

a 3 percent discount rate, should be 

reduced by approximately 28 percent. 

Thus, expected lifetime societal costs 

per unit of $195.31 for items covered 

with severely ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics were reduced to $140.04 after 

incorporating the trend data. Similar 

calculations led to estimates of lifetime 

societal costs of $86.60 for items 

covered with moderately ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics; $28.24 for items 

covered with less ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics; and $4.06 for items 

covered with thermoplastic fabrics. (See 

column 6 in Table 1.) 

b. Expected Benefits 

The analysis described above 

estimated the per unit hazard costs 

associated with the upholstery materials 

of different ignition propensities, based 

on the furniture in use during 2002–

2004, the most recent time period for 

which fire data is available. However, as 

discussed in Section 4, the types of 

upholstery materials used in the 

production of furniture have changed 

over the years. Since the proposed 

standard would address risks associated 

with current production, projection of 

benefits requires estimating the societal 

costs associated with materials now 

being used to manufacture furniture. 

This is accomplished by estimating the 

percentage of furniture items currently 

made with covering materials of 

differing ignition propensities. 

A 2006 survey of furniture 

manufacturers by Ciprus Limited 

provides information on consumption of 

cellulosic, thermoplastic, and leather 

covering materials in the production of 

furniture.53 Using CPSC staff test data 

discussed above, the percentages of 

current production (as indicated by the 

Ciprus data) made with materials 

ranging from severely ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics to ignition resistant 

materials such as leather were 

estimated. These estimates are shown in 

column 1 of Table 2. The estimated 

percentage of upholstered items now 

made with severely ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics has fallen to 9.6 

percent of annual production, from 12.0 

percent estimated for furniture in use 

during 2002–2004. This is a 20 percent 

decrease in the relative use of the most 

ignition-prone class of fabrics. The use 

of other ignition-prone fabrics has also 

declined, in relative terms, while the 

use of generally ignition-resistant 

materials such as leather (estimated to 

be about 30 percent of current 

production) is 62 percent greater than 

found in household use in 2002–2004. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11718 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11719 

54Miller, David. op. cit. 

55Estimated average property losses for 2002–

2004 are expressed in 2005 dollars, based on 

changes in the Producer Price Index for 

construction materials. 

56 Viscusi, W. Kip, op. cit. 

57Zamula, William W., op. cit. Injury costs are 

expressed in 2005 dollars. 

Column 2 of Table 2 shows the 

expected number of furniture units 

produced annually, by type of covering 

material, based on the market shares of 

the various fabric coverings (column 1) 

and an estimated 30.5 million furniture 

units produced. Column 3 provides the 

estimates of per unit lifetime societal 

costs derived in Table 1. 

Based on current estimates of the 

types and quantity of furniture 

produced, the estimated total present 

value of the expected societal costs from 

cigarette fires is $681 million for 

furniture produced in a year, in the 

absence of a standard. (See column 4 of 

Table 2.) Total estimated societal costs 

involving furniture covered with 

severely ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics account for $411 million, or 

about 60 percent of the total. In contrast, 

thermoplastic fabrics, which are used to 

cover about 45 percent of all 

upholstered furniture produced, 

account for an estimated $55.5 million 

in societal costs, or only about 8 percent 

of the total. 

A comparison of the ignition 

performance of upholstered chairs made 

with current fabrics with that of chairs 

made in compliance with the proposed 

standard would provide data to assess 

the likely reduction in ignition 

propensity that would result from the 

proposed standard. In the absence of 

such data, we can estimate the benefits 

of the standard by making reasonable 

judgments about improvements in 

ignition performance that would result 

from the use of complying materials. 

Furniture currently manufactured 

with severely ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics could realize a reduction in 

societal costs per unit under the 

proposed standard to the equivalent of 

that now estimated for furniture covered 

by less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. 

This reduction would be attributable to 

improved ignition performance of 

fabrics or from the use of qualifying 

barriers. The reduction in lifetime 

societal costs per unit from $140.04 to 

$28.24 amounts to a hazard reduction of 

79.8 percent (shown in column 5 of 

Table 2). We likewise assume that prestandard societal costs estimated for 

moderately ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics (which are also expected to fail 

the proposed cover fabric test) would 

also likely fall to the level of estimated 

hazard costs associated with furniture 

covered with less ignition-prone fabrics. 

The estimated reduction from estimated 

lifetime societal costs of $86.60 to 

$28.24 would be a 67.4 percent 

reduction in the hazard presented (also 

shown in column 5). Since upholstered 

furniture items covered with less 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics and 

thermoplastic fabrics are expected to 

pass the proposed cover fabric test, and 

there are no requirements for filing 

materials under the proposed standard, 

furniture covered with those fabrics 

would not be expected to be associated 

with any reduction in their expected 

societal costs. 

The estimated benefits per unit were 

calculated for each fabric class. (See 

column 6 of Table 2.) Per unit benefits 

of the proposed standard range from $0 

for furniture covered with ignitionresistant fabrics such as thermoplastic 

or lower cigarette-ignition-prone 

cellulosics to an estimated $111.80 per 

unit for items currently covered by 

severely ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics. The benefits from ignition 

resistant materials such as leather, wool, 

and vinyl-coated fabrics are also 

expected to be $0. 

The total estimated benefits of the 

proposed standard are calculated by 

multiplying estimated per unit benefits 

(shown in column 6) by the estimated 

annual units produced with each class 

of covering material (column 2). Based 

on these calculations, estimated benefits 

of the standard, in the form of expected 

lifetime reduction in societal costs 

associated with production of furniture 

in one year, discounted to their present 

value using a discount rate of 3 percent, 

total $410.2 million. About 80 percent 

of total estimated benefits are associated 

with the approximately 10 percent of 

furniture currently made with severely 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. 

As noted previously, OMB guidance 

to Federal agencies on the use of 

discounting in regulatory analysis 

recommends that future benefits (and 

costs) of federal regulations be 

presented using discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. Projected 

benefits from reductions in smoldering 

ignitions have an estimated present 

value of $309.1 million if future benefits 

are discounted at a 7% discount rate. 

In addition to cigarette losses, the 

Directorate for Epidemiology estimated 

fire losses from small open-flame 

ignitions for the years 2002–2004.54

During this time period, there were an 

average of 30 deaths and 170 nonfatal 

injuries annually from fires started by 

small open flames. There was also an 

average of about $50 million annually in 

property losses from small open flameignited fires during this time frame.55

Assuming a value of statistical life of 

$5 million,56 the societal costs 

associated with the 30 deaths annually 

amounted to about $150 million. The 

170 nonfatal injuries were assigned an 

average cost of $146,740 each,57

resulting in societal costs of about $25 

million. Adding in the $50 million 

annually in property losses from fires 

started from small open-flame ignition, 

the total annual costs of open-flame 

ignited fires addressed by the proposed 

standard amount to about $225 million 

($150 million + $25 million + $50 

million). 

As in Table 1, these annual estimates 

of the open-flame losses are used to 

develop estimates of the lifetime 

societal costs of open-flame hazards per 

unit of furniture in use during 2002–

2004, for each of the five fabric 

categories. The results are presented in 

Table 3. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11720 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11721 

58Based on testing data presented in Directorate 

for Laboratory Sciences memoranda dated October 

3, 1996, through September 19, 1997, Tab D, 

‘‘Upholstered Furniture Flammability: Regulatory 

Options for Small Open Flame & Smoking Material 

Ignited Fires,’’ October 24, 1997. 

Column 1 of Table 3 shows the 

proportions of furniture in each fabric 

material category, and is identical to the 

corresponding column in Table 1. 

Column 2 describes open-flame ignition 

propensities, based on small open flame 

ignition testing by the CPSC laboratory 

in 1996. In that testing, cellulosic and 

thermoplastic fabrics had nearly the 

same ignition propensity when 

subjected to a small flame for 20 

seconds. Ignitions in 20 seconds or less 

were observed for 27 of 29 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics (about 

93 percent) and 17 of 18 predominantly 

thermoplastic fabrics (about 94 

percent).58

Based on these ignition propensities 

and the estimated percentages of 

furniture in use comprised by 

upholstered items with cellulosic and 

thermoplastic fabrics, furniture covered 

with thermoplastic fabrics accounted for 

an estimated 62 percent of the overall 

risk of small open flame ignitions 

during 2002–2004; items covered with 

cellulosic fabrics accounted for an 

estimated 38 percent of the risk. While 

Table 3 separates cellulosic fabrics 

according to differences in their 

cigarette ignition propensities, for this 

analysis all cellulosic fabrics are 

assumed to have the same small open 

flame ignition propensity. The 

estimated percent of overall risk for 

each type of cellulosic fabric is, 

therefore, determined by market share. 

As with the risk of ignition by cigarettes, 

furniture covered by leather, wool, and 

vinyl-coated fabrics is assumed to be 

resistant to ignition from a 20-second 

exposure to a small open flame. 

Following the same methodology 

described in Table 1, the average annual 

societal costs associated with small 

open flame ignitions of each fabric type 

were estimated by dividing the products 

of estimated percent of total risk and the 

total estimated average annual societal 

costs associated with small open flame 

ignition of furniture ($225 million) by 

the estimated number of units in use 

during 2002–2004 with each fabric type 

(447 million units in use × estimated 

market share). This approach resulted in 

estimated average annual societal costs 

of about $.62 for items covered with 

thermoplastic fabrics (62% × $225 

million /447 million × 50.2%) and about 

$.61 for items covered with 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics (38% × 

$225 million/447 million × 31.2%). (See 

column 5 of Table 3.) 

Finally, the lifetime societal costs (per 

unit of furniture) were estimated as the 

present value of the annual per unit 

societal costs over the expected product 

life of a furniture item. This present 

value estimate (shown in column 6), 

discounted at a rate of 3 percent, is 

about $7.55 for items covered with 

predominantly thermoplastic fabrics 

and $7.44 for items covered with 

predominantly cellulosic fabrics. 

The estimated benefits associated 

with the prevention of open-flame fires 

are described in Table 4. The 

methodology is similar to that described 

for Table 2. Column 1 shows the current 

market shares, by fabric type, and 

Column 2 shows annual sales based on 

annual furniture shipments of 30.5 

million units. Column 3 provides the 

estimates of per unit lifetime societal 

costs derived in Table 3, and Column 4 

provides estimates of the aggregate 

societal costs of fires associated with 

open-flame ignition. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11722 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11723 

59Smith, Charles, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, CPSC, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of 

a Draft Proposed Flammability Rule to Address 

Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture, November 2007. 

60Based on 25% effectiveness x 60% of the 

fabrics being FR-treated and 90% x 40% that are 

made with barriers. 

61Based on 25% effectiveness x 21.6% of the 

fabrics being FR-treated and 90% x 40% that are 

made with barriers. 

62Those other items probably would incur 

relatively minor increases in costs because of the 

types of materials used, and smaller material 

requirements per unit of furniture. 

For the purposes of this analysis, we 

assume that about 40 percent of 

furniture currently manufactured with 

severely cigarette ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics (accounting for about 

1.17 million units, or 3.8 percent of all 

furniture items) would be made with 

barrier materials. Complying barriers 

may reduce the open flame ignition 

hazards by about 90 percent, or $6.70 

per unit, and benefits could total $7.9 

million for furniture made with 

complying barriers. 

Based on the assumption that 40 

percent of severely cigarette ignitionprone cellulosic fabrics would be used 

with complying barriers, the remaining 

60 percent of furniture currently 

manufactured with severely cigarette 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 

(accounting for 5.8 percent of all 

furniture items) and the 4.6 percent of 

fabric yardage that is moderately 

cigarette ignition prone (combining for 

nearly 3.2 million units) would require 

other modifications or they would have 

to be dropped from use as upholstery 

cover materials. The methods of 

compliance chosen by manufacturers 

likely would affect the level of 

reduction in open flame ignition 

hazards. The implications of these 

decisions are discussed below. 

Fabrics that do not pass the 

upholstery cover fabric smoldering 

ignition resistance test could be brought 

into compliance through treatments 

with FR chemicals. FR treatment of 

fabrics and filling materials to achieve 

compliance with the staff’s 2005 draft 

standard might result in a 50 percent 

reduction in small open flame fire 

losses.59 However, unlike the 2005 draft 

standard, the current proposed standard 

does not include provisions related to 

open flame ignition performance of 

filling materials, which in many cases 

would have required FR treatments to 

achieve compliance. Lacking this 

additional contribution to fireretardance, the effectiveness of FR fabric 

treatments under the proposed standard 

at reducing the small open flame fire 

hazard probably would be lower. 

Consequently, the hazard reduction for 

furniture with FR-treated fabrics may be 

about 25 percent under the proposed 

standard. Per unit open flame ignition 

benefits would be about $1.86, and 

aggregate open flame benefits would be 

about $5.9 million, if manufacturers 

resort to FR treatment for all of the 

nearly 3.2 million units. From the 

standpoint of fabric type, the average 

hazard reduction for severely cigarette 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics would 

be 51 percent,60 and the reduction for 

moderately cigarette ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics would be 25 percent. 

(See column 5 of Table 4.) 

Alternatively, manufacturers would 

have the options of using fabrics that are 

reformulated with different fibers or 

dropping non-complying fabrics from 

use as furniture covers. In fact, this may 

be the preferred option for most 

manufacturers, given concerns with 

costs, FR exposure, aesthetic effects, and 

other issues. Open flame benefits would 

not be expected for such furniture items. 

If the use of FR-treatments of fabrics is 

80 percent lower than assumed above, 

the number of units made with FRtreated fabrics would total about 

630,000 and aggregate open flame 

benefits from furniture using FR-treated 

fabrics would be about $1.2 million, and 

total open flame benefits would be 

about $9 million. If all 630,000 units 

with FR fabric treatments involved 

severely cigarette ignition-prone fabrics, 

the average estimated hazard reduction 

for that category of fabrics would be 

about 41 percent.61

Based on the assumed range of 

furniture units that would be made with 

FR-treated fabrics, aggregate open flame 

benefits from the proposed standard 

range from about $9 million to $13.8 

million, as shown in column 7 of Table 

4. In accordance with OMB guidance 

that future benefits (and costs) of federal 

regulations be presented using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, open 

flame benefits of the proposed standard 

have also been estimated to have a 

present value of $6.4 million to $9.9 

million if future benefits are discounted 

at a 7 percent discount rate. 

6. Expected Costs of the Proposed 

Standard 

a. Costs Related to Upholstery Fabrics 

and Barrier Materials 

Upholstery fabric and FR treatments. 

This section of the analysis presents 

information about the expected resource 

costs associated with the proposed 

standard. These costs include 

manufacturing costs incurred for 

materials, labor, testing, and 

recordkeeping, and distribution costs to 

wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. 

The estimates are expressed in 2005 

dollars (as were estimated benefits). 

Cost estimates are limited to 

upholstered household furniture that 

may commonly be found in living 

rooms and family rooms. A relatively 

small number of other types of chairs 

that fall within the scope of the 

standard, such as a small percentage of 

dining chairs and desk chairs purchased 

by consumers, are excluded from this 

analysis.62 Cost estimates are 

summarized in Table 5. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11724 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11725 

63Smith, Charles. Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, CPSC, Economic Analysis of Regulatory 

Options to Address Small Open Flame Ignitions of 

Upholstered Furniture, October 2001. Note: Bureau 

of Labor Statistics reports virtually no change in 

Producer Price Index for job or commission 

finishing of cotton broadwoven fabrics from 2001–

2005. Therefore, previous estimates are used in this 

analysis. 

64Assuming average fabric yardage for sofas and 

loveseats is 13 linear yards. 

65We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living 

room and family rooms furniture purchased for 

consumer use was comprised of about 15.6 million 

sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0 

million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($4.55 × 47.3%) 

+ ($8.45 × 52.7%) = $6.61; and ($7.77 × 47.3%) + 

($14.43 × 52.7%) = $11.28. 

66Smith, Charles. op. cit. 

67Based on a telephone conversation between a 

representative of Vanguard Furniture, and Charles 

Smith, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC, on 

February 23, 2001. 

68Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

National Compensation Survey reports that average 

upholsterer wages for the Hickory-MorgantonLenoir, NC area were $17.03 per hour in 2005, we 

assume that wages and other labor costs are 

typically higher ($25-$30) for upholsterers that 

work for manufacturers using expensive decorative 

fabrics (which are more likely to be used with 

barrier materials). This assumption is supported by 

labor cost information provided by Vanguard 

Furniture, op. cit. 

Fabrics failing the fabric test of the 

proposed standard could be treated with 

FR chemicals or be reformulated with 

fibers that enable passing results. 

Manufacturers would also be able to 

continue using fabrics without 

modifications if they use an acceptable 

barrier material (i.e., one that passes the 

proposed barrier tests) between the 

fabric and filling materials. For 

purposes of this analysis, the highly 

cigarette ignition-prone fabrics and 

moderately cigarette ignition-prone 

fabrics, estimated to combine for about 

14.2 percent of total upholstery cover 

materials, are assumed to require 

modifications if their use is to continue 

under the proposed standard. As 

discussed previously, these 

modifications could include the use of 

FR treatments or barriers, or 

reformulating the fabrics in a way (such 

as increasing the thermoplastic fiber 

content) that will allow the fabrics to 

pass the smoldering test of the proposed 

standard. 

Based on fabrics that have been tested 

by the CPSC laboratory, many of the 

fabrics that would fail the fabric test of 

the proposed standard are heavier 

weight (over eight ounces per square 

yard) fabrics that are made entirely of 

cellulosic fibers, such as cotton or 

rayon. Many of these fabrics could be 

treated with FR chemicals to enable 

them to pass the fabric test. Typically, 

fully upholstered chairs require about 7 

linear yards of fabric, and sofas require 

11 to 15 yards, depending on factors 

such as the need to match patterns 

(which results in more fabric waste in 

pattern cutting). The average increase in 

fabric costs could range from $.62 to 

$1.05 per linear yard for manufacturers, 

based on previous estimates for FR 

backcoating to achieve resistance to 

ignition from small open flames.63 Also, 

although the proposed standard does 

not specify frequency of testing to 

assure compliance of treated fabrics 

with the fabric test, we assume that 

testing will be done to provide 

guaranties to furniture manufacturers. 

This testing could increase fabric costs 

an additional $.03 to $.06 per linear 

yard of fabric, on average. Therefore, 

total average manufacturing cost 

increases for furniture made with FRtreated upholstery fabrics under the 

proposed standard could range from 

$4.55 to $7.77 for chairs and $8.45 to 

$14.43 for sofas and loveseats.64

Considering estimates of unit shipments 

of chairs and sofas (based on an analysis 

of Department of Commerce Economic 

Census data), the average manufacturing 

cost increase per item of furniture 

resulting from FR treatments of fabric is 

estimated to range from $6.61 to 

$11.28.65 (See column 1 of Table 5.) 

Barrier materials. Some furniture 

manufacturers may choose to offer 

fabrics that do not pass the fabric 

classification test by using an acceptable 

barrier material under the cover fabric. 

Based on barriers used in the UK to 

comply with the barrier test of that 

country’s furniture flammability 

standard, the cost to manufacturers 

could range from $2.00 to $2.47 per 

linear yard (reportedly 54 to 59 inches 

in width) for standard FR barriers, and 

about $2.67 to $2.94 per linear yard for 

down-proof barriers (i.e. having yarns 

and weaves suitable for encasing 

down).66 As with FR-treated cover 

fabrics, testing would be done to assure 

compliance with the barrier test of the 

proposed standard. However, given 

expected large production runs of 

barriers and the greater degree of 

uniformity of barrier materials 

compared to cover fabrics, additional 

testing costs to furniture manufacturers 

could be about $.01 per yard of barrier 

fabric. 

The decision to use barriers as a 

means to comply with the standard is 

more likely to be taken by firms that 

serve the upper-end furniture market. 

These furniture items are more likely to 

be manufactured with interior fabrics 

between the cushioning materials and 

the upholstery covers. In a 1995 survey 

of furniture manufacturers, the CPSC 

found that about one-third of the seat, 

arm and back cushions were made with 

interior fabrics. Interior fabrics were 

used in an average of about 50 percent 

of cushions made by smaller firms, 

which are more likely to serve the 

upper-end market. To the extent that 

manufacturers already enclose filling 

materials in interliner fabrics, the FR 

barriers could be replacing untreated 

materials. 

Cushions are usually purchased from 

fabricators that make them to the 

specifications of the furniture 

manufacturers. For seat cushions, the 

barrier alternative would result in a 

change in the interior fabric used by the 

cushion fabricators. For such items, 

barrier costs would be offset by the costs 

of the untreated materials, about $.30 

per yard for standard interliner fabrics 

and $.80 per yard for down-proof 

interliner fabrics. Net increases in 

material costs, including costs for 

testing, would be about $1.71 to $2.18 

per yard for standard fabrics and $1.88 

to $2.15 per yard for down-proof fabrics. 

Cushions typically have sides that are 

about 24 inches long, and they are about 

5 inches thick. Therefore, about one 

linear yard of 54-inch wide interior 

fabric would be used per seat cushion, 

and the cost increases per linear yard of 

material would also hold true for cost 

increases per cushion. 

Barrier materials required for other 

parts of the seating areas of furniture 

items might require about two yards of 

material per chair and four yards per 

sofa. These areas may be less likely to 

have interliner fabrics currently than is 

the case with seat cushions. Therefore, 

increased material costs probably would 

be $2.01 to $2.48 per linear yard for 

standard FR barriers. These materials 

would increase material costs by about 

$4.02 to $4.96 for chairs and $8.04 to 

$9.92 for sofas. Adding the 

approximately $1.71 to $2.18 per 

cushion material cost increases from 

substituting the use of FR barriers for 

standard interliner materials, total 

increased material costs might be about 

$5.73 to $7.14 for chairs and $13.17 to 

$16.46 for sofas. 

In addition to increased material 

costs, manufacturers would also be 

faced with additional costs related to 

labor needed to include FR barriers on 

parts of the upholstered items that are 

not currently made with interliner 

fabrics or battings. The additional labor 

required might average about 15 to 20 

minutes per item.67 Hourly labor costs, 

including benefits, are estimated to 

range from about $25 to $30.68

Therefore, labor costs for the additional 

upholstery work could be about $6.25 to 

$10.00. Total increases in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11726 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

69We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living 

room and family rooms furniture purchased for 

consumer use was comprised of about 15.6 million 

sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0 

million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($11.98 × 47.3%) 

+ ($19.42 × 52.7%) = $15.90; and ($17.14 × 47.3%) 

+ ($26.46 × 52.7%) = $22.05. 

70 Information provided to the staff at a June 29, 

2000, public meeting. 

71 (30.5 million units × 3.8% × $15.90) = $18.7 

million; (30.5 million units × 3.8% × $22.05) = 

$25.9 million. 

72 (30.5 million units × 5.8% × $6.61) = $11.6 

million; (30.5 million units × 5.8% × $11.28) = 

$19.9 million. 

73Costs related to production testing are 

incorporated in the estimated material costs of the 

draft standard. 

74Based on the assumption that 60% of these 

units will use FR-treated fabrics and 40% will use 

barriers. 

manufacturing costs (material and labor) 

are estimated to range from $11.98 to 

$17.14 for chairs and $19.42 to $26.46 

for sofas and loveseats. The average 

increase in manufacturing costs per item 

of upholstered furniture that would be 

made with FR barriers is estimated to 

range from $15.90 to $22.05.69 (See 

column 2 of Table 5.) 

As noted above, highly cigarette 

ignition-prone fabrics, estimated to 

comprise 9.6 percent of total upholstery 

cover materials, could require the use of 

FR treatments or barriers if their use is 

to continue under the proposed 

standard. The use of barriers is more 

economically feasible with more 

expensive fabrics, such as those 

produced by members of the Decorative 

Fabrics Association (DFA). The DFA 

estimates that fabrics marketed by its 

members comprise perhaps 1.5 percent 

of total upholstery fabric yardage used 

to make furniture.70 If 40 percent of 

highly cigarette ignition-prone fabrics 

(3.8% of all upholstery cover materials, 

i.e., more than just the 1.5 percent of 

fabric yardage reportedly marketed by 

DFA members) are assumed to be used 

with acceptable barrier materials under 

a standard, about 1.17 million furniture 

pieces annually might be made with 

barriers under a standard. The aggregate 

manufacturing cost increase related to 

use of complying barrier fabrics under 

these assumptions would range from 

about $18.7 million to $25.9 million.71

If 60 percent of highly cigarette ignitionprone fabric yardage (covering 5.8% of 

all furniture items) is assumed to be 

treated with FR chemicals, the 

estimated aggregate increase in 

manufacturing costs from FR treatment 

of fabrics would range from $11.6 

million to $19.9 million annually.72 The 

combined aggregate costs of fabric 

treatments and barriers would total 

$30.3 million to $45.7 million annually. 

In addition to costs associated with 

furniture covered with severely cigarette 

ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics, fabrics 

that are moderately cigarette ignitionprone could also be expected to require 

modifications in order to comply with 

the proposed standard’s smoldering 

ignition test for cover materials. If these 

units (accounting for an estimated 4.6% 

of current furniture purchases by 

consumers) are also made with FR fabric 

treatments, material costs per unit 

would increase by $6.61 to $11.28, for 

an increase in estimated aggregate costs 

ranging from $9.3 million to $15.9 

million annually. Total estimated 

material cost increases related to FR 

treatment of fabrics or the use of 

complying barriers would, therefore, 

range from about $39.6 million to $61.6 

million annually. 

It should be noted that these cost 

estimates could be considered to be the 

upper bound for material costs of the 

proposed standard, since manufacturers 

would have the less expensive 

alternative of substituting upholstery 

fabrics that pass the smoldering 

requirements for those that do not, 

without the application of FR chemicals 

or the use of barrier materials. If 

choosing these options were to reduce 

reliance on FR-treatments of fabric by 80 

percent from that assumed in the above 

analysis, FR-treatment costs under the 

proposed standard could total about 

$6.3 million annually. Under this 

assumption, an estimated 2.1 percent of 

furniture items would be made with FRtreated fabrics; 3.8 percent would be 

made with barrier materials, and; 8.3 

percent would be units in which fabrics 

were reformulated with more ignitionresistant fibers or otherwise switched to 

fabrics/covers that comply without 

treatments or barriers. In this scenario, 

aggregate costs of FR-treatment of 

fabrics and the use of barriers would be 

about $30.8 million. 

b. Costs Related to Compliance 

Verification 

Costs related to compliance 

verification will result from 

requirements placed on furniture 

manufacturers to maintain records and 

to apply a permanent label to the 

items.73 Other resource costs of 

compliance verification include the 

costs of compliance and enforcement 

activities undertaken by CPSC staff. For 

purposes of this analysis we assume 

compliance verification costs of about 

$.10 per furniture unit. (See column 5 

of Table 5.) 

c. Distribution Costs 

An additional cost of the proposed 

standard could be increases in costs to 

wholesalers, distributors, and retailers 

in the form of added storage, 

transportation, and inventory financing 

costs. Since furniture items that would 

be produced under the standard are not 

likely to be larger or heavier than prestandard items, added storage and 

transportation costs are likely to be 

negligible. However, inventory 

financing costs will increase by the 

average cost of borrowing money, 

applied to the increase in the wholesale 

price of a furniture item over the 

average inventory holding time period. 

Since most furniture producers use justin-time production and have small 

inventories of finished items, this 

additional cost will probably not exceed 

10 percent of the increase in 

manufacturing costs. A 10 percent 

markup, therefore, is being used to 

measure these distribution costs. This 

yields a resource cost to the firms in the 

distribution chain averaging about 

$0.67–$1.14 per furniture item made 

with FR-treated fabrics and $1.60 to 

$2.22 per item made with barriers. The 

weighted range of estimated resource 

costs for furniture made with severely 

cigarette ignition-prone fabrics is $1.04 

to $1.57 per unit of furniture.74 (See 

column 4 of Table 5.) Aggregate costs 

associated with estimated increased 

inventory financing costs range from 

$4.2 million to $6.4 million annually. 

As discussed in Section 7 of this 

analysis, the proposed standard may 

lead to increases in retail prices of 

furniture greater than the 10 percent 

markup. 

d. Summary of Expected Costs 

Table 5 summarizes the results of the 

cost analyses. It illustrates the differing 

costs estimated to be incurred under the 

standard by furniture items covered 

with the different classifications of 

upholstery materials previously 

discussed in the societal costs and 

benefits section of this analysis. The 

estimated 14.2 percent of furniture 

items covered by severely and 

moderately cigarette-ignition-prone 

cellulosics would incur greater total and 

per unit costs under the proposed 

standard. We assume these fabrics 

would fail the upholstery cover fabric 

smoldering ignition resistance test of the 

proposed standard. Therefore, their 

continued use in furniture production 

would require the use of barrier 

materials that pass the barrier test of the 

proposed standard or other treatments. 

Furniture items covered with other 

types of upholstery materials should not 

require FR-treated fabrics or barriers. 

However, all units would incur minor 

compliance verification costs. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11727 

Based on the estimated increases in 

manufacturing costs associated with 

changes in fabrics and the use of 

barriers, costs of compliance 

verification, and distribution costs, 

aggregate costs under the proposed 

standard are estimated to range from 

about $47 million to $71 million 

annually. The midpoints of the 

estimated ranges of costs total $59.1 

million. As noted above, since changes 

in fiber contents of fabrics or dropping 

fabrics from selections offered by 

manufacturers will be an option 

available to manufacturers, the aggregate 

manufacturing costs related to FR 

treatments and barriers could be lower. 

Under an alternative assumption that 

the reliance on FR treatments of fabrics 

will be 80 percent lower, aggregate costs 

of the proposed standard would be 

about $34 million for one year’s 

production of complying furniture. 

7. Comparison of Costs and Benefits 

a. Benefits and Costs of Proposed 

Standard 

The expected benefits of the proposed 

standard, which will vary depending on 

the cigarette ignition propensity of the 

upholstery cover material used, were 

discussed in Section 5 of this analysis 

(and shown in Tables 2 and 4) and are 

summarized in Table 6. Table 6 shows 

the estimated benefits (per unit of 

furniture) in columns 1, 2, and 3. The 

benefits associated with bringing 

furniture pieces now covered with 

severely cigarette ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics into compliance are 

estimated to range from $114.88 to 

$115.59 per unit (comprised of $111.80 

from reduced losses from furniture fires 

started by cigarettes and $3.08 to $3.79 

from reduced losses from fires started by 

small open flames). The projected 

benefits resulting from modifications to 

furniture covered with moderately 

cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics range from $58.36 to $60.22 per 

unit. For both groups of fabrics the 

range in benefits is attributable to the 

effect of different assumptions of use of 

FR fabric treatments on open flame 

ignition benefits. Other types of 

covering materials are not expected to 

be associated with either cigarette or 

open flame benefits, since no 

modifications to fabrics or filling 

materials would be required to comply 

with the proposed standard. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11729 

75Aggregate benefits ranging from about $316 

million to $319 million minus aggregate costs 

ranging from about $34 million to $59 million 

(midpoint of range). 76 Viscusi, W. Kip. op. cit. 

Table 6 also shows (in column 4) the 

midpoints of the ranges of estimated per 

unit costs of compliance with the 

proposed standard, which were 

discussed in Section 6 of this analysis. 

Estimated costs per unit of furniture 

covered with severely and moderately 

cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics are expressed as ranges based on 

different assumptions of the extent to 

which FR treatment would be used to 

achieve compliance. The higher cost 

estimates reflect the midpoint of costs 

estimated using an assumption that all 

of the affected fabrics are either FR 

treated or used with complying barriers. 

The lower cost estimates assume that 

reliance on FR treatments is reduced by 

80 percent, as manufacturers comply 

through fabric fiber reformulation or 

dropping noncomplying fabrics from 

use as upholstery covers. 

Table 6 also shows aggregate and 

cumulative net benefits associated with 

the proposed standard. The total net 

benefits shown in column 7 are the 

product of per unit net benefits and 

number of units produced annually by 

type of cover material. For example, the 

total estimated net benefits from 

furniture covered with moderately 

cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics range from $70.7 million to $81.9 

million, given by the product of 1.4 

million units produced and per unit net 

benefits of $50.27 to $58.25. The 

cumulative net benefits (shown in 

column 8 of Table 6) are calculated by 

the vertical summation of the ‘‘Total Net 

Benefits’’ column. Total net benefits of 

the proposed standard are estimated to 

range from $364.9 million to $385.1 

million. 

As noted in Table 6 and in previous 

sections of this analysis on benefits, 

expected benefits accruing in future 

years have been discounted to their 

present value using a 3 percent discount 

rate to reflect society’s time preference. 

In accordance with OMB guidelines on 

benefits calculations, calculations have 

also been made using a 7 percent 

discount rate. Using this higher rate, 

total net benefits of the proposed 

standard are estimated to range from 

about $260 million to $281 million over 

the life of complying upholstered 

furniture produced in a year.75 Analyses 

using both discount rates assume that 

manufacturers would use FR treatments 

in a manner that poses no additional 

risk of injury or adverse health effects to 

consumers. 

b. Sensitivity Analysis 

The previous discussion compares 

benefits and costs of the proposed 

standard using discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent to express 

expected benefits accruing in the future 

in their present value, an estimated 

value of a statistical life of $5 million, 

and an estimated average cost of injury 

of $146,740. Net benefits were also 

estimated based on estimated increases 

in costs of producing and marketing 

furniture that complies with the 

proposed standard. In addition to these 

factors, the estimation of benefits was 

based on assumptions regarding the 

effectiveness of the standard at reducing 

losses from cigarette and small open 

flame ignitions. This section examines 

the effect of changing any of these 

assumptions on the expected net 

benefits that would result from 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

In all cases, the estimated net benefits 

of the proposed standard remain 

positive. 

Discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent were used to express expected 

benefits accruing in the future in their 

present value. Using a 3 percent rate, 

total estimated benefits of the standard 

range from about $419 million to $424 

million, the range of estimated total 

costs is about $34 million to $59 

million, and total estimated net benefits 

range from about $365 million to $385 

million. Using a 7 percent discount rate, 

the present value of benefits would 

range from about $316 million to $319 

million, and total net benefits would 

range from about $260 million to $281 

million. 

Estimated benefits of the proposed 

standard were based on a value of a 

statistical life of $5 million. If benefits 

are calculated based on a lower bound 

of $3 million as the value for a statistical 

life,76 total estimated benefits of the 

standard would range from about $267 

million to $270 million using a 3 

percent discount rate and about $201 

million to $203 million using a 7 

percent discount rate. Total estimated 

net benefits would range from about 

$211 million to $233 million using a 3 

percent discount rate and $144 million 

to $167 million using a 7 percent 

discount rate. Alternatively, if a value of 

$7 million is assigned to a statistical 

life, the total estimated benefits would 

range from about $572 million to $578 

million (at a 3% discount rate) and 

about $430 million to $435 million (at 

a 7% discount rate) and total estimated 

net benefits would range from about 

$519 million to $538 million (at a 3% 

discount rate) and $376 million to $396 

million (at a 7% discount rate). 

Estimated benefits of the proposed 

standard are based on an average 

societal cost of $146,740 per injury. 

Changing the estimate used for the cost 

of injury will have minimal impact on 

the results, because the share of benefits 

from reduced injuries is less than 4 

percent of total benefits. Hence, even if 

there were no reduction in injuries from 

the proposed standard, the total 

estimated benefits would be about $404 

million to $409 million and total net 

benefits would be $350 million to $370 

million using a 3 percent discount rate. 

Using a 7 percent discount rate, 

estimated benefits would range from 

about $305 million to $308 million and 

estimated net benefits would range from 

about $249 million to $271 million. 

Section 6 of this analysis addresses 

the expected costs of the standard. 

Estimates of costs are based on 

judgments regarding changes to 

materials that will be required to meet 

performance tests of the proposed 

standard, the costs of those changes per 

unit, and the number of affected 

furniture items produced annually. 

Based on the midpoints of ranges of 

estimated cost impacts of material 

changes, and different assumptions of 

reliance on FR fabric treatments as a 

means to compliance, aggregate costs of 

the standard were estimated to be $34 

million to $59 million for annual 

production of upholstered household 

furniture. With these costs, total 

estimated net benefits of the proposed 

standard range from about $365 million 

to $385 million using a 3 percent 

discount rate and $260 million to $281 

million using a 7 percent discount rate. 

Even if we assume that the costs of the 

standard are twice those estimated in 

Section 6 (i.e., $68 million to $118 

million) the standard would still have 

estimated net benefits ranging from 

about $306 million to $351 million from 

annual production of upholstered 

furniture if future benefits are 

discounted at 3 percent, and about $190 

million to $237 million if a 7 percent 

discount rate is used. 

Estimated benefits of the proposed 

standard were based on assumptions 

regarding the effectiveness at reducing 

societal costs of cigarette and small 

open flame ignitions of furniture. 

However, if we assume that the standard 

will have one-half the effectiveness that 

our estimated benefits are based upon, 

aggregate benefits would still range from 

about $210 million to $212 million, and 

net benefits would range from about 

$153 million to $176 million, using a 3 

percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent 

discount rate, estimated benefits would 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

77Smith, Charles, 2001 op. cit. Based on ‘‘Best 

Estimates’’ of reductions in ignition propensity and 

midpoints of estimated increases in manufacturing 

costs; as with the current analysis, distribution 

costs are estimated to be an additional 10 percent. 

The best estimate for cigarette ignition reduction 

involving cellulosic fabrics is 75%, based on 2003 

estimates made by Mark Levenson, EPHA, CPSC. 

78The net benefits of the staff’s 2007 draft 

standard may also be underestimated. The 

difference does not take into account the likely 

heavier (and hence more costly) loadings of FR 

chemicals that would be needed to meet the 20- 

second open flame test of the alternative 2001 draft 

open flame standard. (For purposes of comparison, 

the FR treatment costs between these two 

alternatives were assumed to be the same.) 

range from about $158 million to $160 

million, and net benefits would range 

from about $100 million to $124 

million. 

c. Impact of the Proposed Standard on 

Retail Prices 

The estimated costs of the proposed 

standard include the increased costs of 

materials, labor, and distribution 

directly attributable to the rule. It is 

likely that manufacturers will pass on at 

least some of the costs of complying 

with the standard to the consumer, in 

the form of higher retail prices. The 

actual increase in retail prices will 

depend on the price elasticity of 

demand for furniture products (i.e., the 

responsiveness of quantity demanded to 

the change in price). If demand is highly 

price elastic, then manufacturers will 

experience a relatively large decrease in 

sales of upholstered furniture products 

in response to a price increase, and their 

ability to pass on increased regulatory 

costs to the consumer is limited. If 

demand is price inelastic, consumers 

respond less intensely to price 

increases, enabling producers to 

successfully pass through cost increases. 

Regarding the market for upholstered 

furniture, it is anticipated that demand 

is relatively price elastic in the short 

run, because consumers can usually 

postpone the purchase of a durable 

good. Increases in retail prices are thus 

likely to be limited. In the long run, 

demand is less elastic and any attempt 

to pass through increased costs is more 

likely to succeed. Consequently, 

increases in retail prices are more likely 

to be observed. 

In the absence of information on the 

price elasticity of demand for 

upholstered furniture products, it is 

possible to make use of traditional 

industry markup rates to provide an 

upper bound estimate for retail price 

increases. Such estimates may be 

viewed as upper bound estimates 

because they do not reflect the price 

elasticity of demand. Moreover, 

traditional markups do not factor in the 

role of competition, which can also 

influence attempts to increase prices. 

Rather, the markup simply reflects the 

price that producers will want to charge 

based on historical accounting costs. As 

noted above, an increase in price will 

result in a reduction in sales and in the 

case of highly elastic demand, revenues 

will decline as well, which will tend to 

moderate attempts to increase retail 

prices. 

According to industry sources, higher 

production costs for materials and labor 

could result in retail prices that are 

higher by a factor of 2.5, or 150 percent. 

Based on this markup, the average retail 

price impact of the proposed standard 

on furniture items made with FR treated 

fabrics could be about $23 (for perhaps 

2 to 10 percent of all items), and the 

average retail price impact for furniture 

produced with barrier materials could 

be about $48 (for perhaps 4% of 

furniture items). The average retail price 

impact for furniture that will not be 

made with FR fabric treatments or 

barriers under fabrics (perhaps 86 to 

94% of units), could be under $1 per 

unit. The average increase in retail 

prices for all upholstered furniture is 

estimated to be less than $5 per item, 

based on the traditional industry 

markup rates. 

8. Alternatives to the Proposed Standard 

a. The Staff’s 2005 Draft Standard 

The aggregate benefits of the staff’s 

2005 draft standard (i.e., the reduction 

in the societal costs associated with 

complying furniture), based on the 

annual sales of a little over 30 million 

furniture items, are expected to be about 

$597 million. Total aggregate costs of 

the 2005 draft standard for each year’s 

production are estimated to range from 

about $167 million to $184 million, 

with a midpoint of about $176 million. 

Although the 2005 draft standard would 

be expected to increase the use of FR 

chemicals in the production of urethane 

foam cushioning and fabrics to achieve 

compliance, estimates assumed that 

these chemicals would be selected and 

used in a way that would not lead to 

appreciable societal costs. If the use of 

these chemicals would have adverse 

health or environmental impacts, the 

costs of the 2005 draft standard are 

understated. Estimated benefits and 

costs per unit would vary greatly 

depending on cover materials. Most 

units would incur costs related to FRtreatment of filling materials, and an 

estimated 10 percent of units covered 

with more ignition-prone fabrics would 

require modifications (FR-fabric 

treatment or FR barriers) that would 

lead to higher costs of compliance. 

Projected annual net benefits to society 

from the staff’s 2005 draft standard total 

$421.5 million. A sensitivity analysis of 

several factors (value of life, injury 

costs, effectiveness, and costs) showed 

that alternative assumptions still yield 

substantially positive net benefits. 

b. The Draft Small Open Flame Ignition 

Standard 

As an alternative to the proposed 

standard, the Commission could adopt 

the standard drafted by CPSC staff in 

2001 that focused on small open flame 

ignition of upholstered furniture. That 

draft standard was the subject of a staff 

briefing package submitted to the 

Commission in October 2001. 

Compliance with the draft small open 

flame standard would require the use of 

upholstery cover materials that do not 

sustain combustion following exposure 

to a small flame for 20 seconds, or, 

alternatively, the use of materials that 

would pass an open flame barrier test. 

The staff estimated that most fabrics 

would fail the 20-second flame test 

unless they would be treated with FR 

chemicals. Although the FR treatments 

under that standard specifically 

addressed small open flame ignition 

hazards, CPSC staff testing data also 

showed substantial improvement in 

cigarette ignition resistance. In fact, 

most of the estimated benefits of the 

small open flame standard were 

projected to result from reductions in 

societal losses from cigarette ignitions. 

Based on estimated costs of 

compliance and estimated reductions in 

both small open flame and cigarette 

ignition hazards, adoption of the 2001 

draft small open flame standard would 

result in estimated aggregate benefits 

totaling $651 million and aggregate 

costs of about $272 million from annual 

production of about 30.5 million pieces 

of upholstered furniture.77 Therefore, 

estimated aggregate net benefits of the 

small open flame standard would be 

$379 million. This compares with 

estimated net benefits of $365 million to 

$385 million for the proposed 

standard.78

While the estimated net benefits of 

the proposed standard are relatively 

close to those estimated for the staff’s 

2001 draft small open flame standard, 

the costs associated with the proposed 

standard are substantially less. In fact, 

the estimated costs of the proposed 

standard (ranging from $34 million to 

$59 million) are 78 to 87 percent lower 

than the costs of the 2001 draft ($272 

million). The difference is related, in 

large part, to the reduced level of 

treatment of upholstery fabric with FR 

chemicals. Unlike the proposed 

standard, which would result in the 

treatment of perhaps 2 to 10 percent of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11731 

79Franklin, Robert. Preliminary Environmental 

Assessment of a Draft Proposed Flammability 

Standard for Residential Upholstered Furniture. 

November 2007. 

80Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, CPSC, and Linda Fansler, Directorate for 

Laboratory Sciences, Cigarette Ignition Propensity 

of Upholstered Furniture, November 1996. 

81Based on the assumption that 5% of seat 

cushions with Class II fabrics (perhaps 150,000 

cushions) would require polyester wraps. 

82A representative of welt cord manufacturer, 

Petco-Sackner, reported during an October 17, 2007, 

telephone conversation with Charles Smith, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, that UFAC welt 

cord is sold to furniture manufacturers for $32 per 

1,000 yard reel, versus $25 per 1,000 yards for 

similar non-UFAC welt cord. 

83 If current UFAC conformance is about 90% and 

about 55% of units are made with welt cord (based 

on 1995 survey of manufacturers), average 

incremental welt cord costs of about $.11 per item 

would be applied to approximately 1.7 million 

units annually, with aggregate costs of about $185 

million. 

upholstery fabric coverings, nearly 66 

percent of the upholstery covers would 

likely receive FR treatments to pass the 

20-second open flame test of the CPSC 

staff’s 2001 draft standard. 

It should also be noted that retail 

price impacts of the proposed standard, 

reflecting the lower underlying costs, 

would also be substantially lower than 

under the staff’s 2001 small open flame 

draft standard. Increases in the retail 

price of furniture may have some 

negative impact on sales. Higher prices 

may lead some consumers to delay the 

purchase of new furniture or lead them 

to buy it less frequently, and could 

potentially result in secondary impacts 

on the sales of furniture components 

and industry employment; such effects 

are likely to be more pronounced in the 

short run. While the impact of these 

price increases cannot be predicted with 

certainty, the higher costs of the 2001 

open flame standard would likely have 

more pronounced effects. Additionally, 

while the retail price impact of the 

proposed standard will tend to fall most 

heavily on generally more expensive 

furniture items (i.e., those with the more 

expensive cellulosic fabrics), the 

alternative open flame standard would 

fall disproportionately on the more 

inexpensive furniture with 

thermoplastic fabrics, the fabrics less 

prone to cigarette ignition. 

Finally, while FR chemicals could be 

used under both the proposed standard 

and the 2001 draft open flame standard, 

usage under the draft small open flame 

standard is likely to be much greater. 

Under the 2001 open flame standard the 

staff estimated that up to about 300 

million linear yards of fabric could be 

FR-treated annually. Under the 

proposed standard, however, an 

estimated maximum of 65 million yards 

could potentially be treated.79

c. A Mandatory Standard Based on the 

UFAC Voluntary Program 

As an alternative to the proposed 

standard, the Commission could adopt 

the provisions of the UFAC Voluntary 

Action Program as a mandatory 

standard. The Upholstered Furniture 

Action Council, or UFAC, was formed 

by major furniture industry associations 

in 1974, largely as a response to 

prospective CPSC actions on 

upholstered furniture. The UFAC 

Voluntary Action Program was 

developed in the late 1970’s and 

amended as ‘‘Phase 2’’ in 1983. Tests for 

decorative trim were added to the 

program in 1993. The program requires 

classification of upholstery cover fabrics 

into either ‘‘Class I’’ or ‘‘Class II,’’ based 

on a cigarette ignition performance test. 

All conforming furniture must comply 

with specified construction criteria for 

welt cords, decking substrates, filling 

materials, and interior fabrics; and more 

cigarette ignition-prone Class II fabrics 

used with polyurethane foam seat 

cushions must have a barrier material 

between the fabric and foam that passes 

a barrier smoldering performance test. 

Conforming furniture is to be labeled 

with a UFAC tag. 

The staff’s last market evaluation of 

UFAC conformance was conducted in 

1996. At that time, based on ignition 

testing of chairs purchased by the CPSC, 

the staff estimated that about 90 percent 

of upholstered furniture may have been 

produced in conformance with the 

UFAC program (including a majority of 

units produced by firms that did not 

participate in the UFAC program). 

Although the UFAC program is 

designed to prevent the use of furniture 

components that may be more likely to 

lead to cigarette ignition of the finished 

items, the program is not designed to 

predict the ignition performance of all 

UFAC furniture. CPSC staff testing 

found that some chairs that conformed 

to the UFAC program ignited from 

cigarettes, and some nonconforming 

chairs resisted ignition. The findings 

illustrated that cigarette-ignition 

resistance of upholstered furniture is 

more dependent on the fabrics and 

filling materials used, rather than on 

conformance with all aspects of the 

UFAC Program.80

Costs of mandating the requirements 

of the UFAC program should be 

minimal. Perhaps the major program 

element associated with costs is the 

requirement for a smolder-resistant 

barrier to be used under Class II fabrics 

when the seat cushion core is standard 

urethane foam. The primary barrier 

material for this purpose under the 

UFAC program is polyester fiberfill 

cushion wrap. Based on analysis of 

market data, fewer than 5 percent of 

upholstered furniture items are 

currently produced with Class II fabrics. 

The great majority of the seat cushions 

on these items already is made with 

polyester wraps, and, therefore, are 

conforming to the UFAC program. 

Incremental costs of using polyester 

wraps on all seat cushions covered with 

Class II fabrics could total less than 

$500,000.81 Non-UFAC establishments 

surveyed in 1995 were found to be less 

likely than UFAC program participants 

to use heat-conducting welt cords in 

seat cushions. Welt cord that conforms 

to the UFAC program reportedly costs 

furniture manufacturers less than one 

cent more per yard, compared to 

comparable welt cord that does not 

conform to the UFAC program.82

Incremental costs could be less than 

$.04 per seat cushion and $.07 or less 

per chair and $.15 or less per sofa, for 

items made with welt cord. Given what 

is believed to be the current high 

conformance rate, and the absence of 

welt cord in a substantial portion of 

upholstered furniture styles, 

incremental costs to substitute UFACcompliant welt cord might total less 

than $200,000.83 Other costs associated 

with changes in construction materials 

associated with the adoption of the 

UFAC program as a mandatory rule 

should be very minor. Incremental costs 

related to compliance enforcement 

should be low, since materials are 

already subject to verification testing to 

qualify as acceptable materials under 

the UFAC program and manufacturers 

already incur labeling costs under the 

UFAC program. However, it is possible 

that somewhat higher recordkeeping 

costs could be one of the major cost 

elements of mandating the UFAC 

program, given the minor costs related 

to materials. Total costs of compliance 

for adoption of the UFAC program as a 

mandatory standard could be under $5 

million. 

Benefits that would result from 

mandating compliance with the UFAC 

program would also be much smaller 

than estimated for other alternative 

performance standards discussed in this 

analysis. Most furniture covered with 

fabrics that would benefit most from a 

barrier of polyester fiberfill over 

urethane foam already are manufactured 

in that way. The cigarette-ignition 

resistance of nearly all upholstered 

items would not be significantly 

improved under this alternative. 

Although a minimal reduction in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

84The 2001 CPSC draft standard required that 

there be no continuing combustion 15 minutes after 

a 20-second small flame application to a composite 

consisting of the fabric to be tested and non-FR 

urethane foam. 

85Said Nurbakhsh, PhD, California Bureau of 

Home Furnishings, in a November 14, 2005, e-mail 

to Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, CPSC. 

overall smoldering hazard (of less than 

1%) could result in positive net 

benefits, the expected net benefits of 

adoption of the UFAC program as a 

mandatory standard would be minimal, 

and substantially below any other 

alternative performance standards 

discussed in this analysis. 

d. A Mandatory Furniture Standard 

Based on the Revised Draft Provisions of 

California Technical Bulletin 117 

In February 2002, California’s Bureau 

of Home Furnishings published draft 

revisions to the state’s Technical 

Bulletin (TB–117) that contains 

mandatory requirements for materials 

used in the manufacture of upholstered 

furniture sold in the state. Unlike the 

proposed standard, the revised 

California draft standard specifies open 

flame and smoldering ignition tests for 

filling materials (including urethane 

foam and loose filling materials). These 

filling materials requirements apply to 

all furniture items, including those 

covered in ignition resistant fabrics such 

as leather, wool and vinyl. 

In addition, the revised draft TB–117 

specifies a small open flame test for 

upholstery fabrics. The open flame test 

requires the 20 second application of a 

small open-flame to the crevice of a 

seat/back mock-up assembly of fabric 

over a standard flame-retardant 

polyurethane foam pad. The specimen 

fails if (1) weight loss exceeds 4 percent 

in the first 10 minutes, or (2) the 

specimen burns progressively before 10 

minutes. 

In the view of the Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences (ES), the open 

flame fabric test is less stringent than 

the open flame test for fabrics that was 

part of the CPSC staff’s 2001 draft 

standard.84 Nevertheless, ES believes 

that the great majority of fabrics 

currently used by the furniture industry 

would require modification in order to 

comply with the draft TB–117 test. This 

judgment is shared by the California 

Bureau of Home furnishings personnel, 

based on their testing experience.85

Based on testing by California’s 

Bureau of Home Furnishings and the 

CPSC laboratory, it is reasonable to 

assume that the majority of cover 

materials are likely to fail the revised 

draft TB–117 open flame test, with the 

exception of ignition resistant cover 

materials (such as leather, wool, and 

vinyl-coated coverings) and some of the 

heavier-weight cellulosic fabrics. 

Consequently, for purposes of 

evaluating the costs and benefits of this 

alternative, we assume that two-thirds 

of the approximately 10 percent of cover 

materials that are severely ignitionprone cellulosic fabrics (which cover 

about 2 million units of furniture 

annually, or about 6% of all fabric 

coverings) would pass the draft TB–117 

open flame fabric test. The remaining 

severely ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics (covering about 1 million 

furniture items) will be assumed to fail 

the test and therefore require FR 

treatment. An additional assumption is 

that all of the moderate- and lowerignition prone cellulosics and 

thermoplastic cover materials (covering 

about 18 million furniture items 

annually, or about 60% of all furniture 

items produced) would fail the open 

flame fabric test and have to be treated. 

Thus, a total of about 19 million units 

of furniture would be covered in fabrics 

that would have to be treated in order 

to comply with the revised draft TB–

117. 

The primary costs of the revised draft 

TB–117 would be the costs of treating 

the filling materials (e.g., urethane foam 

and loose fill) and the cover fabrics that 

fail the open flame test. The per-unit 

costs of treating urethane foam and the 

loose fill could be similar to those 

estimated for the 2005 standard drafted 

by the CPSC staff. Consequently, the 

filling materials costs per item of 

furniture might amount to about $5.85 

per unit. Since the TB–117 filling 

materials requirements would apply to 

all furniture items produced (including 

items using ignition resistant cover 

fabrics), the total filling materials costs 

would amount to about $178 million 

($5.85 per unit × 30.5 million units). It 

is possible that additional costs would 

be required to treat fibrous filling 

materials under the revised draft TB–

117, since the open flame test for that 

material could be more stringent than 

that drafted by the CPSC staff in 2005. 

Based on the assumptions described 

above, approximately 19 million units 

of furniture would be covered in fabrics 

that fail the open flame fabric test and 

would therefore have to be treated. The 

estimated costs of FR treatments based 

on the 2001 CPSC staff draft open flame 

standard ranged from about $6.61 to 

$11.28 per average unit of furniture, 

with a midpoint of about $8.95 per item. 

If we assume that the incremental costs 

of FR-treated fabrics under TB–117 

amount to about 75 to 100 percent of the 

costs estimated for the 2001 draft open 

flame standard, the midpoint of the 

resulting range of costs would be about 

$7.83 per item of furniture. Therefore, 

the aggregate costs of the FR treatment 

of fabrics might amount to about $151 

million ($7.83 per item × 19.3 million 

items). 

In summary, the costs of treating the 

filling materials and fabrics under TB–

117 could amount to about $330 million 

annually or more ($178 million for 

filling materials and $151 million for 

fabrics). The associated compliance and 

distribution costs could bring the total 

up to about $370 million annually. This 

would be more than 6 times the 

estimated costs of the proposed 

standard, estimated to range from $34 

million to $59 million. 

The likely benefits that would result 

from adoption of the revised draft of 

TB–117 as a mandatory standard vary 

by cover material type. First consider 

the furniture covered by severely 

cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic 

fabrics (2.9 million units). Based on the 

assumptions described above, about 1 

million of these furniture items will fail 

the open flame fabric test of the revised 

draft TB–117 and have to be treated. 

Since these furniture items will have 

fabric treatments as well as complying 

filling materials, it may be reasonable to 

assume that the benefits under the 

revised draft TB–117 would be 

comparable to those of the CPSC staff’s 

2005 draft standard (which would also 

have treated filling materials), about 

$118 per unit. Thus, the benefits from 

these items would amount to about $115 

million ($118.05 per item × 978,300 

items). Additionally, for the remaining 

2.0 million units covered with severely 

cigarette ignition-prone fabrics that are 

not treated, the benefits would probably 

be no more than about half of the 

benefits associated with the treated 

units, or about $59 per unit. Thus, the 

benefits associated with these 2.0 

million units with untreated fabrics 

might amount to about $115 million 

($59.03 per unit × 1,956,600 units). 

Therefore, the total estimated benefits 

resulting from annual production of 

complying furniture upholstered with 

severely cigarette ignition-prone 

cellulosic fabrics would be about $231 

million. 

About 18.3 million units of furniture 

covered in moderately- and lowerignition prone cellulosic fabrics and 

thermoplastic fabrics will also likely fail 

the open flame fabric test of the revised 

draft TB–117 and have to be treated. 

Under the staff’s 2005 draft proposed 

standard, these furniture items would 

have treated filling materials, but not 

treated fabric coverings. For purposes of 

this analysis, we will assume that the 

benefits associated with the filling 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11733 

86Based on estimates from tables 2, 4, and 6 in 

the November 2007 Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis. 

87Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative 

Updates. http://www.firesafecigarettes.org 

(referenced on September 19, 2007). 

88Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President—

Public Affairs, Reynolds American Inc., in a letter 

to James M. Shannon, National Fire Protection 

Association, October 25, 2007. 

materials tests of the revised draft TB–

117 are similar to those of the CPSC 

staff’s 2005 draft standard. 

Consequently, the estimated benefits 

associated with the revised draft TB–

117 would be greater because the cover 

fabrics would also be treated. In other 

words, unlike the 2005 CPSC staff’s 

draft standard, the benefits of treated 

filling materials would be augmented by 

the use of FR-treated fabrics under the 

revised draft TB–117. Since the 

estimated benefits for these furniture 

items under the staff’s 2005 draft 

standard amount to about $251 million, 

the gross benefits associated with the 

revised draft TB–117 would be greater 

than $251 million. If we assume that the 

fabric treatments would reduce the 

remaining societal costs by about 50 

percent, then the gross benefits for these 

18.3 million units might amount to 

about $329 million ($251 million + 0.5 

× ($408 million¥$251 million)).86

Based on this analysis, the total 

benefits associated with the revised 

draft TB–117 might amount to about 

$560 million ($231 million from 

furniture covered with severely ignition 

prone fabrics and $329 million from 

furniture covered with other fabrics). 

These estimated benefits are greater 

than those associated with the proposed 

standard (estimated to range from $419 

million to $424 million). 

In summary, the estimated annual 

costs associated with the revised draft 

TB–117 may amount to about $370 

million, and the estimated benefits may 

amount to about $560 million. 

Therefore, the estimated net benefits of 

this regulatory alternative are about 

$190 million. This compares to $365 

million to $385 million in net benefits 

estimated to result from the proposed 

standard. 

e. A Labeling Rule 

A rule requiring hazard information to 

be presented on labels could be adopted 

by the Commission in addition to, or in 

lieu of, a standard. The costs of labeling 

would be just a few cents per item 

(based on reported labeling costs under 

the UFAC Voluntary Action Program 

and estimates provided by a label 

manufacturer). However, the impacts of 

such labeling on product safety are 

likely to be minimal. Labeling that 

warns of cigarette ignition hazards is 

unlikely to be effective, because labels 

are unlikely to be seen by consumers 

when the upholstered item is in use, 

and because there already is general 

public awareness of these hazards. 

Additionally, a warning label would not 

be likely to prevent fires started by 

children playing with lighters and 

matches, who are unlikely to read the 

statements provided. 

f. Alternative Effective Date 

Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics 

Act states that standards or regulations 

shall become effective 12 months from 

the date of promulgation, unless the 

Commission finds that a different 

effective date is in the public interest. 

Because of the need for FR treatment of 

some fabrics used in the manufacture of 

furniture and the fact that furniture 

manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a 

longer period before the rule becomes 

effective, such as 18 months, could 

provide some firms additional time to 

use inventories of fabrics that would not 

pass the proposed standard’s fabric test 

without FR treatment. However, given 

the small percentage of fabrics that will 

need to be treated (under 10%), it is 

unlikely that limiting the effective date 

to 12 months would substantially 

burden firms. 

Additionally, several options might be 

available to furniture manufacturers that 

have fabric that does not comply with 

a regulatory alternative adopted by the 

CPSC as the effective date for the action 

approaches. They might send the 

remaining fabric yardage to contract 

finishers for backcoating with FR 

chemicals. They could use FR barrier 

materials beneath the untreated fabric, 

as allowed by that alternative method of 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

Also, they might sell the fabric to 

jobbers who would market it to 

furniture manufacturers that use FR 

barriers with untreated upholstery 

fabrics and for other end-uses that are 

not within the scope of the regulation. 

In view of the relatively small 

percentage of fabrics estimated to 

require FR treatments or other 

modifications, and other options 

available to furniture manufacturers, an 

effective date longer than 12 months 

from the date of promulgation might not 

be in the public interest. 

g. Taking No Action 

The Commission could determine that 

no rule is reasonably necessary to 

reduce the risk of fires associated with 

ignitions of upholstered furniture. 

Under this alternative, future societal 

losses would be determined by factors 

that affect the likelihood that ignition 

sources come in contact with upholstery 

and the ignition resistance of upholstery 

materials used by furniture 

manufacturers. For example, the 

apparently increasing use of ignitionresistant upholstery materials, such as 

leather, could reduce fires over time. 

Also, the state of California might adopt 

the draft revisions to its mandatory 

standard for upholstered furniture. 

Those revisions could result in reduced 

fire losses in that state, which accounts 

for perhaps 15 percent of the furniture 

market. Some furniture manufacturers 

might use materials that comply with 

some or all provisions of the California 

revised standard for all of their furniture 

production, which could reduce fire 

losses in other areas. Additionally, other 

political jurisdictions could impose 

requirements that would reduce future 

losses from furniture fires. 

Factors other than furniture materials 

will also determine fire losses in the 

future. Some of these will tend to 

increase future losses (such as projected 

annual increases of about 1% in 

population and households) and others 

might decrease future losses (such as 

continued reductions in rates of 

smoking and alcohol consumption, 

increasing smoke alarm operability, 

information and education efforts, and 

installation of sprinkler systems in new 

construction). 

Particularly noteworthy is the 

expected growth in the availability of 

cigarettes that reduce the probability of 

igniting upholstered furniture. Effective 

on June 28, 2004, the State of New York 

required all cigarettes sold in the state 

to self-extinguish if they are left 

unattended. Such cigarettes are 

expected to reduce greatly, but not 

eliminate, residential fires started by 

cigarettes. Similar legislation became 

effective in Vermont in 2006 and 

California, Oregon, and New Hampshire 

in 2007, and has been signed into law 

in 17 other states, with effective dates 

ranging from January 1, 2008, to January 

1, 2010. Legislation has also been 

introduced in nine other states. By 2010, 

more than half of the U.S. population 

will be living in states with mandatory 

laws addressing the ignition propensity 

of cigarettes.87 In addition to state 

actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 

Company, the second-largest cigarette 

manufacturer with about one-third of 

the U.S. market, recently announced its 

intention to only market reduced 

ignition propensity cigarettes in the U.S. 

by the end of 2009.88 This policy, 

combined with the increased imposition 

of state requirements, could spur other 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

89Cost estimates are weighted based on shipment 

data of larger items such as sofas and sofabeds (with 

higher costs) and smaller items such as chairs (with 

lower costs). 

cigarette manufacturers to make similar 

business decisions. 

If the Commission does not adopt a 

mandatory rule to address furniture 

flammability it is possible that a 

voluntary standard (perhaps through 

modifications to the existing UFAC 

Voluntary Action Program) could be 

developed based on the proposed 

standard, or based on other provisions, 

to address these hazards. However, no 

such voluntary standard currently 

exists. Moreover, the effort begun in 

1996 through ASTM to establish a 

voluntary standard is currently inactive. 

Furthermore, comments submitted in 

response to the October 23, 2003, ANPR 

representing all segments of the affected 

industries supported mandatory federal 

regulation to address upholstered 

furniture flammability. 

Thus, while furniture fires might 

decline with no CPSC action, there is no 

reason to believe that the decline would 

approach the proportion of fire losses 

that could be prevented with the 

proposed standard, or some of the other 

performance standard alternatives 

described in this analysis. 

I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires that rules proposed by 

the Commission be reviewed for the 

potential economic impact on small 

entities, including small businesses. 

Section 603 of the RFA requires the 

Commission to prepare and make 

available for public comment an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

describing the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities and identifying 

impact-reducing alternatives. 

Accordingly, staff prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

proposed rule on upholstered furniture. 

A summary of the analysis follows. 

2. Impact on Small Businesses and 

Other Small Entities 

Summary of proposed requirements. 

The proposed standard will apply to 

finished or ready-to-assemble articles of 

upholstered furniture, as discussed 

earlier in this document. The proposed 

standard contains smoldering ignition 

performance requirements for cover 

fabrics, and smoldering and open flame 

performance requirements for interior 

fire barriers (if they are used as the 

method of compliance). Furniture items 

can comply by being made with 

upholstery cover materials that pass the 

cover material cigarette ignition test 

(designated as ‘‘Type I upholstered 

furniture’’). Alternatively, 

manufacturers may comply with the 

proposed standard by using a barrier 

material under the upholstery fabric that 

passes the standard’s applicable barrier 

tests (‘‘Type II upholstered furniture’’). 

This option allows manufacturers to use 

non-complying upholstery fabrics. 

In addition to flammability 

performance requirements, the proposed 

standard contains provisions relating to 

certification and recordkeeping, testing 

to support guaranties issued by material 

suppliers, and labeling of finished 

articles of upholstered furniture. These 

requirements are intended to help 

manufacturers, importers and suppliers 

ensure that their products comply, and 

to help the CPSC staff to enforce the 

performance standard. 

The proposed standard provides that 

finished articles of upholstered 

furniture must carry a permanent label 

containing the manufacturer or importer 

name and location; month and year of 

manufacture; model identification; and 

type identification indicating the means 

of compliance (i.e., ‘‘Type I’’ or ‘‘Type 

II’’). This information must be separate 

from other label information. The label 

would help retailers and consumers 

identify products and materials, e.g., in 

the event of a recall or other corrective 

action. 

In summary, all manufacturers and 

importers of upholstered furniture 

would be subject to the standard if it is 

adopted as a rule by the Commission. 

However, it is likely that the great 

majority of testing would be done by or 

for upholstery fabric suppliers. These 

results would then be used to support 

guaranties of compliance that will be 

provided to furniture manufacturers. 

Records would be prepared by those 

conducting tests (fabric and filling 

material manufacturer personnel or 

outside testing facilities); copies of 

reports and records would be 

maintained by upholstered furniture 

manufacturers and furniture importers. 

No special skills that are not already 

available to manufacturers and 

importers would be required to establish 

or verify compliance with the proposed 

rule. 

Impact on small businesses. The 

proposed standard would apply to 

manufacturers and importers of 

upholstered furniture intended for sale 

to consumers. According to the Census 

Bureau’s 2002 Economic Census, 1,686 

U.S. companies (with 1,946 

establishments) manufactured 

upholstered household furniture or 

dual-purpose sleep furniture as their 

primary product. Only 29 percent of 

upholstered furniture establishments 

(564 of 1,946) had 20 or more 

employees, and only 10 percent (200 

establishments) had 100 or more. The 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considered a furniture 

manufacturing company to be ‘‘small’’

for purposes of qualification for small 

business loans if it has fewer than 500 

employees (at all of its establishments). 

This definition encompassed more than 

97 percent of firms in the industry in 

2002. 

The proposed standard will also affect 

manufacturers and finishers of 

upholstery fabrics and barrier materials 

used in the production of furniture. 

Although their products are not directly 

regulated by the draft proposed 

standard, it is expected that they will 

provide guaranties to furniture 

manufacturers regarding fabric ignition 

resistance. It is expected that about 10 

percent of upholstery cover fabric 

yardage will require changes in 

production, such as the incorporation of 

flame retardant (FR) chemicals or 

changes in fibers, in order to pass the 

fabric test of the draft proposed 

standard. As noted above, noncomplying fabrics could still be used 

with complying barrier materials. As 

with furniture manufacturers, the great 

majority of upholstery fabric 

manufacturers and fabric finishers are 

small businesses under SBA definitions. 

The usual means of compliance with 

the proposed standard will be the use of 

fabrics that do not need FR treatments 

or barriers. More than 85 percent of all 

upholstered furniture items made under 

the proposed standard would be made 

with such materials. For these items, 

estimated average increased costs of the 

standard would be minor costs of a few 

cents per unit that are largely associated 

with compliance verification. For those 

units that comply as a result of FR 

treatment of fabrics or the use of 

barriers, estimated costs are higher, but 

are only estimated to involve less than 

15 percent of total production. The 

increased resource costs associated with 

furniture using treated FR fabrics (i.e., 

the costs associated with materials, 

labor, and distribution) are expected to 

average about $9.95 per item of 

furniture; the increased costs associated 

with the use of barriers may amount to 

about $21 per unit.89

The cost impacts faced by firms using 

treated materials, including smaller 

manufacturers, would be proportionate 

to the yardage of treated upholstery 

fabrics or barrier materials used. 

Therefore, the costs of these methods of 

compliance are not expected to be borne 

disproportionately by smaller 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11735 

manufacturers of furniture. In addition, 

they should be able to pass at least some 

of these increased costs on to residential 

consumers. Small businesses that 

manufacture relatively inexpensive 

furniture that will require no fabric 

modifications should face only modest 

increases in expenses related to 

compliance verification, estimated to 

average $.11 per unit. For these reasons, 

it seems unlikely that the rule would 

have a significant impact on small 

furniture manufacturers. 

Many of the fabrics currently used by 

small furniture manufacturers that 

would fail the fabric test of the proposed 

standard are likely to be relatively 

expensive decorative fabrics. The 

proposed standard’s option of using FR 

barrier materials would be a likely 

means of compliance for furniture made 

with such fabrics, and this option was 

requested by the segment of the industry 

using the more expensive decorative 

fabrics when the CPSC staff was drafting 

an open flame standard in 2001. Other 

fabrics used by these small furniture 

manufacturers could be brought into 

compliance with FR treatments at lower 

per unit costs, if their aesthetic qualities 

would not be significantly degraded by 

the processes. These alternative means 

of compliance would allow decorative 

fabrics to remain available to the 

upholstered furniture industry and the 

consuming public. Since the prices of 

fabrics that would be treated or used 

with barriers, and the furniture made 

with them, are likely to be considerably 

higher than average, the relative 

increases in per unit costs would be 

moderated for the small furniture 

manufacturers that use them. 

Additionally, discussions with 

upholstered furniture manufacturers 

producing the more expensive furniture 

using decorative fabrics suggest that the 

barrier option will substantially address 

their concerns with likely adverse 

aesthetic effects of FR treatments for 

many of these fabrics. 

The estimated per unit costs of the 

proposed standard discussed above 

include relatively modest costs for 

recordkeeping (included in the 

estimated average compliance 

verification costs of about $.11 per item 

of furniture). The proposed standard 

would require furniture manufacturers 

to maintain records for a period of three 

years after items are produced. The 

records will include identification and 

description of the furniture items and 

materials used in their manufacture, 

contact information for material 

suppliers, and results of relevant 

material tests. Smaller firms with 

limited product lines are expected to 

bear lower costs than larger firms with 

broad product lines. In summary, the 

recordkeeping requirements of the 

proposed rule would not likely place a 

substantial burden on small businesses. 

The proposed standard was also 

designed to minimize testing costs that 

would be imposed on small furniture 

manufacturers. Since they may rely on 

guaranties provided by fabric and 

barrier material suppliers, the proposed 

rule does not require firms to test 

composites of their fabrics and the range 

of actual cushioning materials. Such 

testing would significantly increase 

costs of the proposed standard, and 

would likely disproportionately affect 

small manufacturers of upholstered 

furniture. Nor does the proposed 

standard include a requirement for a 

small open flame test of cover fabrics. 

An open flame test requirement similar 

to the 2001 CPSC staff draft furniture 

flammability standard would have 

added substantially to costs faced by 

small furniture manufacturers. 

Many of the fabrics that would fail the 

fabric test of the proposed standard are 

likely to be more expensive decorative 

fabrics. Based on information provided 

by the Decorative Fabrics Association, 

its members are generally among the 

smaller establishments that will be 

affected by the proposed rule. Partially 

in response to comments received from 

this segment of the industry, the CPSC 

staff included the provision for use of 

acceptable barrier materials as an 

alternative means of compliance. This 

alternative was sought by the industry 

because of concerns that aesthetic 

qualities of many decorative fabrics 

would be adversely affected by FR 

treatments. This alternative allows all 

upholstery fabrics manufactured by 

small textile firms to be used under the 

proposed standard, and is expected to 

substantially mitigate the impact of the 

proposed standard on their businesses. 

Under the proposed standard, 

manufacturers are required to conduct 

reasonable and representative tests to 

support initial guaranties of compliance 

for their materials. However, the costs 

associated with these requirements are 

expected to be minimal since many of 

these costs are now incurred for 

products marketed for use as complying 

with voluntary standards or mandatory 

standards enforced by California and 

other jurisdictions. Manufacturers of 

upholstery fabrics already classify their 

fabrics using the UFAC fabric 

classification test, which is similar to 

the fabric test of the proposed standard. 

Thus, small manufacturers of fabrics 

should only face minor incremental 

costs for testing under the proposed 

standard, compared to current industry 

practices. Furthermore, small 

manufacturers should be able to pass at 

least some of the additional costs of 

testing to furniture producers and 

jobbers that purchase their products. 

This information suggests that the 

testing necessary to provide guaranties 

of compliance by small manufacturers 

of fabrics and filling materials will not 

result in a substantial impact on such 

firms. 

3. Alternatives and Their Possible Effect 

on Small Businesses 

Alternatives considered by the 

Commission are discussed in the 

Preliminary Regulatory Analysis section 

of this preamble, Section H. As 

discussed therein, four alternative 

standards were considered by the 

Commission: A standard based on 

requirements drafted by the CPSC staff 

in 2005 that includes smoldering and 

open flame ignition performance tests 

for filling materials, in addition to 

smoldering tests for cover fabrics and 

tests for barrier materials; the 2001 draft 

small open flame standard developed by 

the CPSC staff; a standard based on 

mandating the provisions of the UFAC 

voluntary program, and; a standard 

based on the 2002 revised draft 

California furniture regulation (TB–117). 

Other regulatory options were also 

evaluated that might lessen the potential 

burden on industry, including small 

firms. These regulatory alternatives 

include extending the effective date 

beyond 12 months after promulgation, 

and adoption of warning label 

requirements. Another alternative for 

consideration was the reliance on a 

voluntary standard or taking no action. 

The CPSC staff’s 2005 draft standard 

would require the use of cover fabrics 

that meet cigarette ignition performance 

tests, and the use of urethane foam and 

fibrous filling materials that meet both 

cigarette ignition and open flame 

ignition performance tests. Under this 

alternative, manufacturers would have 

the option of using fire blocking barriers 

which pass tests of smoldering and open 

flame ignition resistance instead of 

using complying fabrics and filling 

materials. Under the staff’s 2005 draft 

standard, the cost impacts faced by 

firms using treated materials, including 

smaller manufacturers, would be 

proportionate to the amounts of treated 

cushioning materials used, and yardage 

of treated upholstery fabrics or barrier 

materials used. Therefore, the costs of 

these methods of compliance would not 

be expected to be borne 

disproportionately by smaller 

manufacturers of furniture. In addition, 

small manufacturers should be able to 

pass at least some of their increased 

costs on to residential consumers. For 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

90Smith, op. cit. 

these reasons, it is unlikely that this 

alternative would have a significant 

impact on these small furniture 

manufacturers. 

Like the proposed standard, many of 

the fabrics used by small furniture 

manufacturers that would fail the fabric 

test of the staff’s 2005 draft standard are 

likely to be relatively expensive 

decorative fabrics. Therefore, the 

statements made above regarding 

impacts of the proposed standard would 

also apply under this regulatory 

alternative. Also like the proposed 

standard, the Directorate for Economic 

Analysis does not believe that the 

recordkeeping requirements of the 2005 

draft standard place a substantial 

burden on small businesses, and the 

2005 draft was also designed to 

minimize testing costs that would be 

imposed on small furniture 

manufacturers. 

Under the 2005 draft standard, 

processes and materials will be readily 

available to small businesses that 

manufacture cushioning materials for 

the furniture industry.90 The Directorate 

for Economic Analysis believes that 

consequently, since at least some of the 

cost increases are likely to be passed on 

to the furniture manufacturers that 

purchase the materials, a rule based on 

the 2005 draft standard would probably 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses 

that manufacture cushioning materials 

subject to the rule. Nevertheless, 

ignition performance requirements for 

filling materials were not included in 

the proposed standard, which results in 

somewhat lower costs of compliance 

compared to the 2005 draft alternative. 

Another alternative considered by the 

Commission was the standard drafted 

by the CPSC staff in 2001 that focused 

on small open flame ignition of 

upholstered furniture. That draft 

standard was the subject of a staff 

briefing package submitted to the 

Commission in October 2001. 

Compliance with the small open flame 

standard would require the use of 

upholstery cover materials that do not 

sustain combustion (over standard 

urethane foam) following exposure to a 

small flame for 20 seconds, or, 

alternatively, the use of materials that 

would pass a barrier test. 

Based on current market data, the 

2001 draft small open flame standard 

probably would require FR treatments 

for about 70 percent of all upholstery 

cover materials, or the use of acceptable 

barrier materials, compared with less 

than 10 percent of cover materials 

requiring such modifications under the 

proposed standard. The estimated net 

benefits of the 2001 draft small open 

flame standard are substantial, and in 

the range of total net benefits estimated 

for the proposed standard. However, the 

estimated costs of the alternative small 

open flame standard are perhaps 5-to-8 

times those estimated for the proposed 

standard. The higher estimated costs of 

compliance for the draft small open 

flame standard would place greater 

burdens on all manufacturers, including 

smaller firms. 

Unlike the proposed standard, the 

small open flame draft standard would 

require substantial production testing, 

which could disproportionately affect 

small upholstered furniture 

manufacturers with smaller production 

runs. Additionally, since up to 70 

percent of upholstery fabric yardage 

could require FR treatments under the 

draft small open flame standard, there 

would be greater competition for the 

available fabric backcoating capacity. 

Smaller furniture and fabric producers, 

with smaller lots of fabrics to be treated, 

reportedly would be faced with 

difficulties in competing with larger 

firms for timely access to fabric 

finishing services for necessary FR 

treatments. 

As another alternative, the 

Commission could adopt the provisions 

of the UFAC Voluntary Action Program 

as a mandatory standard. The 

Upholstered Furniture Action Council, 

or UFAC, was formed by major furniture 

industry associations in 1974, and the 

UFAC Voluntary Action Program was 

developed in the late 1970’s and 

amended in later years. The program 

requires classification of upholstery 

cover fabrics into either ‘‘Class I’’ or 

‘‘Class II,’’ based on a cigarette ignition 

performance test. All conforming 

furniture must comply with specified 

construction criteria for welt cords, 

decking substrates, filling materials, and 

interior fabrics; and more cigarette 

ignition-prone Class II fabrics used with 

polyurethane foam seat cushions must 

have a barrier material between the 

fabric and foam that passes a barrier 

performance test. Conforming furniture 

is to be labeled with a UFAC tag. In 

1996 the CPSC staff estimated that about 

90 percent of upholstered furniture may 

have been produced in conformance 

with the UFAC program (including a 

majority of units produced by firms that 

did not participate in the UFAC 

program). Costs of mandating the 

requirements of the UFAC program 

should be minimal. Perhaps the major 

program element associated with costs 

is the requirement for a smolderresistant barrier to be used under Class 

II fabrics when the seat cushion core is 

standard urethane foam. The primary 

barrier material for this purpose under 

the UFAC program is polyester fiberfill 

cushion wrap. Based on analysis of 

market data, fewer than 5 percent of 

upholstered furniture items are 

currently produced with Class II fabrics. 

The great majority of the seat cushions 

on these items already are made with 

polyester wraps, and, therefore, are 

conforming to the UFAC program. Total 

annual costs of compliance for adoption 

of the UFAC program as a mandatory 

standard could be under $5 million. 

Benefits that would result from 

mandating compliance with the UFAC 

program would also be much smaller 

than estimated for the proposed 

standard and other alternative 

performance standards considered by 

the Commission. Most furniture covered 

with fabrics that would benefit most 

from a barrier of polyester fiberfill over 

urethane foam already are manufactured 

in that way. The cigarette-ignition 

resistance of nearly all upholstered 

items would not be significantly 

improved under this alternative. The 

expected net benefits of adoption of the 

UFAC program as a mandatory standard 

would be minimal, and substantially 

below any other alternative performance 

standards discussed in this analysis. 

In summary, a mandatory standard 

based on the UFAC voluntary program 

would have a minimal impact on small 

businesses; much smaller than the 

proposed standard. However, this 

regulatory alternative would not be 

expected to lead to a significant 

reduction in smoldering or open flame 

ignition hazards of upholstered 

furniture. 

Another alternative standard 

considered by the Commission was a 

revised draft standard for upholstered 

furniture published by California’s 

Bureau of Home Furnishings in 2002. 

The draft would revise the state’s 

Technical Bulletin (TB–117) which 

contains mandatory requirements for 

materials used in the manufacture of 

upholstered furniture sold in the state. 

Unlike the proposed standard, the 

revised California draft standard 

specifies open flame and smoldering 

ignition tests for filling materials 

(including urethane foam and loose 

filling materials). However, unlike the 

staff’s 2005 draft (which did include 

such requirements), the filling materials 

requirements apply to all furniture 

items, including those covered in 

ignition-resistant fabrics such as leather, 

wool and vinyl. 

In addition to tests for filling 

materials, the revised draft TB–117 

specifies a small open flame test for 

upholstery fabrics. The great majority of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11737 

91Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative 

Updates. http://www.firesafecigarettes.org 

(referenced on September 19, 2007). 

92Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President—

Public Affairs, Reynolds American Inc., in a letter 

to James M. Shannon, National Fire Protection 

Association, October 25, 2007. 

fabrics currently used by the furniture 

industry probably would require 

modification in order to comply with 

the draft TB–117 test. For purposes of 

evaluating the costs and benefits of this 

alternative, the Directorate for Economic 

Analysis assumes that about 60 percent 

of all furniture items produced would 

be covered in fabrics that would have to 

be treated in order to pass the fabric test 

specified in the revised draft TB–117. 

The combined costs of treating the 

filling materials and fabrics under the 

revised draft TB–117 and the associated 

compliance and distribution costs could 

total more than six times the estimated 

costs of the proposed standard. The 

higher estimated costs of compliance of 

a standard based on the revised draft 

TB–117 regulation would place greater 

burdens on all manufacturers, including 

smaller firms. 

Additionally, since about 60 percent 

of upholstery fabric yardage could 

require FR treatments in order to 

comply with the open flame fabric test 

of the revised draft TB–117, there would 

be greater competition for the available 

fabric backcoating capacity, which 

could cause smaller furniture and fabric 

producers, with smaller lots of fabrics to 

be treated, to be faced with difficulties 

in competing with larger firms for 

timely access to fabric finishing services 

for necessary FR treatments. 

In summary, a standard based on the 

revised draft California furniture 

flammability regulation, TB–117, 

probably would have a more substantial 

and more disproportionate impact on 

small businesses than the proposed 

standard. The Directorate for Economic 

Analysis estimates that the greater 

burden would not result in higher 

benefits than the proposed standard, 

and estimated net benefits from one 

year’s production of upholstered 

furniture under the regulatory 

alternative are close to $200 million 

lower than the net benefits estimated to 

result from the proposed standard. 

Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics 

Act states that standards or regulations 

shall become effective 12 months from 

the date of promulgation, unless the 

Commission finds that a different 

effective date is in the public interest. 

Because of the need for FR treatment of 

some fabrics used in the manufacture of 

furniture and the fact that furniture 

manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a 

longer period before the rule becomes 

effective, such as 18 months, could 

provide some firms (including smaller 

firms) additional time to use inventories 

of fabrics that would not pass the 

proposed standard’s fabric test without 

FR treatment. However, given the small 

percentage of fabrics that will need to be 

treated, it seems unlikely that setting an 

effective date of 12 months from the 

date of promulgation will substantially 

burden firms. 

The Commission could also require 

hazard information to be presented on 

labels in addition to, or in lieu of, a 

standard. The costs of labeling would be 

just a few cents per item (based on 

reported labeling costs under the UFAC 

Voluntary Action Program and estimates 

provided by a label manufacturer), and 

thus, should not present significant 

costs to small furniture manufacturers. 

However, the impacts of such labeling 

on product safety are likely to be 

minimal. Labeling that warns of 

cigarette ignition hazards probably 

would not be effective, because labels 

are unlikely to be seen by consumers 

when the upholstered item is in use, 

and because there already is public 

awareness of these hazards. 

Additionally, a warning label would not 

be likely to prevent fires started by 

children playing with lighters and 

matches, who are unlikely to read, or be 

affected by, the statements provided. 

If the Commission does not adopt a 

mandatory rule to address furniture 

flammability it is possible that a 

voluntary standard (perhaps through 

modifications to the existing UFAC 

Voluntary Action Program) could be 

developed based on the proposed 

standard or based on other provisions, 

such as the industry recommendations, 

to address these hazards. However, no 

such voluntary effort is currently 

ongoing. Moreover, the effort begun in 

1996 through ASTM to establish a 

voluntary open flame standard is 

currently inactive. Furthermore, 

comments submitted in response to the 

October 23, 2003, ANPR representing all 

segments of the affected industries 

supported mandatory federal regulation 

to address upholstered furniture 

flammability. 

The Commission also could have 

chosen to take no action. In this 

situation, future societal losses would 

be determined by factors that affect the 

likelihood that ignition sources come in 

contact with upholstery and the ignition 

resistance of upholstery materials used 

by furniture manufacturers. For 

example, the apparently increasing use 

of ignition-resistant upholstery 

materials, such as leather, could reduce 

fires over time. Also, the state of 

California might adopt the draft 

revisions to its mandatory standard for 

upholstered furniture. Those revisions 

could result in reduced fire losses in 

that state, which accounts for perhaps 

15 percent of the furniture market. Some 

furniture manufacturers might use 

materials that comply with some or all 

provisions of the California revised 

standard for all of their furniture 

production, which could reduce fire 

losses in other areas. Additionally, other 

political jurisdictions could impose 

requirements that would reduce future 

losses from furniture fires. 

Factors other than furniture materials 

will also determine fire losses in the 

future. Some of these will tend to 

increase future losses (such as projected 

annual increases of about 1% in 

population and households) and others 

might decrease future losses (such as 

continued reductions in rates of 

smoking and alcohol consumption, 

increasing smoke alarm operability, 

information and education efforts, and 

installation of sprinkler systems in new 

construction). 

Particularly noteworthy is the 

expected growth in the availability of 

cigarettes that reduce the probability of 

igniting upholstered furniture. Effective 

on June 28, 2004, the State of New York 

required all cigarettes sold in the state 

to self-extinguish if they are left 

unattended. Such cigarettes are 

expected to reduce greatly, but not 

eliminate, residential fires started by 

cigarettes. Similar legislation became 

effective in Vermont in 2006 and 

California, Oregon, and New Hampshire 

in 2007, and has been signed into law 

in 17 other states, with effective dates 

ranging from January 1, 2008, to January 

1, 2010. Legislation has also been 

introduced in nine other states. By 2010, 

more than half of the U.S. population 

will be living in states with mandatory 

laws addressing the ignition propensity 

of cigarettes.91 In addition to state 

actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 

Company, the second-largest cigarette 

manufacturer with about one-third of 

the U.S. market, recently announced its 

intention to only market reduced 

ignition propensity cigarettes in the U.S. 

by the end of 2009.92 This policy, 

combined with the increased imposition 

of state requirements, could spur other 

cigarette manufacturers to make similar 

business decisions. 

While furniture fires might decline 

with no CPSC action, there is no reason 

to believe that the decline would 

approach the proportion of fire losses 

that could be prevented with the 

proposed standard, or some of the other 

performance standard alternatives 

described in this analysis. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed standard will require 

manufacturers (including importers) of 

upholstered furniture to perform testing 

and maintain records of testing. For this 

reason, the proposed rule contains 

‘‘collection of information 

requirements,’’ as that term is used in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. Therefore, the proposed rule 

is being submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) in 

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 

implementing regulations codified at 5 

CFR 1320.11. The estimated costs of 

these requirements are discussed below. 

1. Costs of Testing 

The proposed standard specifies that 

initial samples of 10 test specimens for 

each tested upholstery fabric and barrier 

material (or 25 of 30 total specimens if 

failures are recorded among the first 10), 

must pass the applicable tests in order 

to qualify the materials for use in 

upholstered furniture. Manufacturers of 

fabrics and barrier materials are 

expected to either perform the tests in 

their own facilities or send materials to 

third party testing facilities in order to 

support guaranties of compliance to 

furniture manufacturers. Some 

manufacturers of decorative fabrics that 

could not pass the proposed cover fabric 

test without FR treatments may choose 

to forego the costs of testing and market 

their products with the understanding 

that they would be used with complying 

barrier materials. 

As noted above, approximately 100 to 

200 domestic manufacturers derive a 

significant share of their revenues from 

fabric they produce or import for 

residential upholstered furniture. An 

average of about 50 samples per firm 

could support guaranties for fabrics sold 

to upholstered furniture manufacturers. 

A substantial majority of fabrics that 

would be subjected to tests would likely 

be qualified by passing results on the 

initial sample of 10 specimens. If the 

average cost per test were $50, the cost 

of testing a single fabric would amount 

to about $500, and the average testing 

costs per firm would be about $25,000. 

Aggregate fabric testing costs for the 100 

to 200 domestic manufacturers would 

be $2.5 million to $5 million. 

Guaranties for barrier materials would 

be supported by passing results on the 

proposed barrier tests for (1) open flame 

ignition resistance and (2) smoldering 

ignition resistance. Average costs to 

conduct each of these tests could be 

approximately $125 per test. Assuming 

barrier materials are qualified by the 

testing results for the initial samples of 

20 specimens (10 for the open flame 

ignition resistance test and 10 for the 

smoldering ignition resistance test), 

total testing costs per barrier material 

marketed for use under the standard 

would be about $2,500. If barrier 

material manufacturers market an 

average of four guarantied products for 

use as barriers, total testing costs per 

firm would be about $10,000. If 15 firms 

issue guaranties for complying barriers, 

total costs related to barrier testing 

would be about $150,000. Thus, total 

testing costs for upholstery fabric and 

barrier materials could amount to about 

$2.65 million to $5.15 million. 

Since firms could continue to market 

qualified fabrics and barriers without 

the need for additional testing, testing 

costs per firm could be lower in 

subsequent years under the standard. 

2. Cost of Information Collection and 

Recordkeeping 

In addition to upholstery fabric and 

barrier material testing, the proposed 

standard will require manufacturers to 

maintain detailed documentation of the 

test results and details of each test 

performed by or for that manufacturer. 

Records are required to be in English 

and kept at a location in the United 

States for a period of at least three years 

after production of the article of 

upholstered furniture certified by the 

test results ceases. 

Costs of detailed testing 

documentation are included in the 

estimated costs of testing. Maintaining 

the testing documentation by 

manufacturers of fabrics and barrier 

materials could require an additional 

two hours of labor for each material that 

is certified or guarantied. As discussed 

above, maintaining records for perhaps 

5,000 to 10,000 guarantied upholstery 

fabrics and 60 barrier materials could be 

required under the proposed standard. 

Perhaps two hours of labor could be 

required at a cost of about $26 per hour 

to maintain these records for each 

guarantied material. Therefore, total 

recordkeeping costs incurred by 

upholstery fabric and barrier material 

manufacturers could range from about 

$263,000 to $523,000 ($52 times 5,060 

to 10,060 guaranties). Recordkeeping 

costs could average $2,600 for each 

upholstery fabric manufacturer and 

$208 for each barrier material 

manufacturer. 

Upholstered furniture manufacturers 

would also maintain records of testing 

results for fabrics and barrier materials 

used in their production. Incremental 

costs related to recordkeeping would 

depend, in part, on the extent to which 

firms currently maintain records 

identifying upholstery fabrics and filling 

materials with finished items. Perhaps 

an average of about 40 hours per firm 

would be required to maintain records 

under the proposed standard. According 

to the 2002 Economic Census, 1,686 

firms manufactured upholstered 

furniture as their primary product. At 

approximately $26 per hour, these firms 

would incur average costs of about 

$1,000 per firm to maintain records, and 

aggregate annual costs may be about 

$1.75 million. Thus, the total costs of 

information collection and 

recordkeeping could amount to about 

$2.0 million to $2.3 million. 

K. Environmental Considerations 

Usually, CPSC rules establishing 

performance requirements are 

considered to ‘‘have little or no 

potential for affecting the human 

environment,’’ and environmental 

assessments are not usually prepared for 

these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1)). 

However, because some alternatives to 

the proposed rule could result in more 

materials incorporating flame retardant 

(FR) chemicals, the Commission 

determined that a more thorough 

consideration of the potential for 

environmental impacts was warranted. 

The staff prepared a memorandum 

‘‘Environmental Assessment of 

Regulatory Alternatives for Addressing 

Upholstered Furniture Flammability’’

(available on the Commission’s Web 

site) which discusses the potential 

environmental effects of several 

regulatory alternatives for addressing 

the flammability of upholstered 

furniture. The staff’s analysis concludes 

that, although available scientific data 

are lacking on some FR chemicals, there 

appears to be a number of promising 

methods that manufacturers could use 

to meet an upholstered furniture 

flammability standard without posing 

an unacceptable health risk to 

consumers or significantly affecting the 

environment. The staff’s analysis was 

initiated when the primary regulatory 

alternative being considered was the 

staff’s 2005 draft standard which would 

likely have caused manufacturers to use 

FR chemicals to meet certain provisions 

of that draft standard. As noted 

previously, the standard that the 

Commission is proposing was 

developed, in part, to minimize the 

need for manufacturers to use FR 

chemicals to comply with the standard. 

Only about 14 percent of the cover 

fabrics would require some modification 

to pass the proposed standard. The staff 

anticipates that most manufacturers will 

likely rely primarily on modifying cover 

fabrics (without using FR chemicals) or 

on barriers to meet the proposed 

performance requirements. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11739 

93Both of these documents are available from the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary (see 

ADDRESSES section above) or from the Commission’s 

Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ 

foia08/brief/briefing.html. 

In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’), 

the Executive Director of CPSC has 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (‘‘FONSI’’) for the proposed 

upholstered furniture flammability 

standard. The FONSI is based on the 

staff’s Environmental Assessment and 

concludes that there will be no 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment as a result of the 

proposed upholstered furniture 

flammability standard. The Commission 

requests comments on both the 

Environmental Assessment and the 

FONSI.93

L. Executive Order 12988 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

the preemptive effect, if any, of new 

regulations. The preemptive effect of 

this proposed regulation is as stated in 

section 16 of the FFA. 15 U.S.C. 1203(a). 

M. Effective Date 

The Commission proposes that the 

rule would become effective one year 

from publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register and would apply to 

upholstered furniture manufactured on 

or after that date. The Commission 

believes that a one-year effective date 

should allow sufficient time for 

manufacturers to develop products for 

nationwide markets that will meet the 

proposed requirements. The 

Commission requests comments, 

especially from small businesses, on the 

proposed effective date and the impact 

it would have. 

N. Proposed Findings 

1. General. In order to issue a 

flammability standard under the FFA, 

the Commission must make certain 

findings and include these in the 

regulation, 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). These 

findings are discussed in this section. 

2. Voluntary standards. In the 1970s 

the Upholstered Furniture Action 

Council (UFAC) developed a voluntary 

industry program to assess the cigarette 

ignition propensity of upholstered 

furniture. The substance of the UFAC 

tests was then adopted in the ASTM E–

1353 test method. CPSC staff estimates 

that approximately 90% of furniture 

production conforms to the UFAC 

voluntary program/ASTM E–1353 

standards. However, while fire losses 

from cigarette-ignited upholstered 

furniture fires have been declining, a 

large number of deaths (260 annually) 

and injuries (320 annually) over the 

period 2002–2004 that could be 

addressed by the proposed rule remain. 

Moreover, CPSC laboratory testing has 

found that UFAC-conforming furniture 

can nevertheless ignite and burn when 

exposed to smoldering cigarettes. The 

Commission is unaware of any other 

adopted and implemented voluntary 

standards that address the risk of fire 

from upholstered furniture ignitions. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

compliance with any adopted and 

implemented voluntary upholstered 

furniture flammability standard is not 

likely to result in the elimination or 

adequate reduction of the risk of injury 

from such fires. 

3. Relationship of benefits to costs. 

The Commission estimates the potential 

discounted benefits of a year’s 

production of upholstered furniture 

complying with the standard to range 

from about $419 million to $424 million 

(based on a 3 percent discount rate). 

Compliance costs range from an 

estimated $34 million to $59 million 

annually. Thus, projected net benefits of 

the proposed standard range from $363 

million to $385 million. On this basis, 

the Commission finds that the expected 

benefits from the regulation bear a 

reasonable relationship to its costs. 

4. Least burdensome requirement. The 

Commission considered proposing the 

following alternatives: the staff’s 2005 

draft standard, the staff’s 2001 draft 

small open flame standard, revised 

requirements drafted by California, a 

rule based on the industry’s voluntary 

program, and a ‘‘no action’’ alternative 

under which the status quo would 

continue to prevail. Although the staff’s 

2005 draft standard could result in 

substantial net benefits, it would impose 

significantly higher costs and would 

necessitate the increased use of FR 

chemicals. While the staff’s 2001 draft 

small open flame standard would likely 

be more effective in reducing small 

open flame fire losses, it would also 

impose greater costs and necessitate an 

increase in FR chemicals (nearly 66 

percent of upholstery covers would 

likely need to receive FR treatments to 

pass). A proposal based on California’s 

TB 117 requirements, which contains 

provisions for both fabrics and filling 

materials, would likely have substantial 

annual costs (about $370 million) and 

would result in significantly lower net 

benefits (about $190 million) than the 

proposed standard. The fact that 

significant levels of annual deaths and 

injuries remain despite the existence of 

the voluntary standard and a high level 

of compliance with it demonstrate that 

both the alternatives of a rule based on 

the voluntary standard and the no 

action alternative are unlikely to result 

in adequate reduction or elimination of 

the risk. Therefore, the Commission 

finds that the proposed upholstered 

furniture flammability standard is the 

least burdensome requirement that 

would prevent or adequately reduce the 

risk of injury for which the regulation is 

being promulgated. 

O. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, the Commission preliminarily 

finds that a flammability standard for 

upholstered furniture is needed to 

adequately protect the public against the 

unreasonable risk of the occurrence of 

fire leading to death, injury, and 

significant property damage. The 

Commission also preliminarily finds 

that the standard is reasonable, 

technologically practicable, and 

appropriate. The Commission further 

finds that the standard is limited to the 

fabrics, related materials and products 

which present such unreasonable risks. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1634 

Consumer protection, Flammable 

materials, Labeling, Upholstered 

furniture, Upholstered furniture 

materials, Records, Textiles, Warranties. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1634 to read 

as follows: 

PART 1634—STANDARD FOR THE 

FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED 

FURNITURE AND UPHOLSTERED 

FURNITURE MATERIALS 

Subpart A—General, Definitions, 

Performance Requirements 

Sec. 

1634.1 Purpose, scope and effective date. 

1634.2 Definitions. 

1634.3 General requirements. 

1634.4 Upholstery cover fabric smoldering 

ignition resistance test. 

1634.5 Interior fire barrier material 

smoldering ignition resistance test. 

1634.6 Interior fire barrier material open 

flame ignition resistance test. 

Subpart B—Requirements Applicable 

to Manufacturers, Labeling, Guaranties 

1634.7 Requirements applicable to 

upholstered furniture material 

manufacturers. 

1634.8 Labeling. 

1634.9 Requirements applicable to 

guaranties under Section 8 of the FFA, 

15 U.S.C. § 1197. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart C—Test Apparatus and 

Materials for Smoldering Ignition 

Resistance Tests 

1634.10 Test room. 

1634.11 Specimen holder. 

1634.12 Ignition source. 

1634.13 Sheeting material. 

1634.14 Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. 

1634.15 Standard cotton velvet cover fabric. 

1634.16 Conditioning. 

Subpart D—Test Facility, Exhaust 

System, and Cautions 

1634.17 Test facility and exhaust system. 

1634.18 Cautions. 

Subpart E—Test Facility and Materials 

for Open Flame Ignition Resistance 

Tests 

1634.19 Test room. 

1634.20 Butane gas flame ignition source. 

1634.21 Metal test frame. 

1634.22 Standard rayon cover fabric. 

1634.23 Open flame tests fabric cut-out 

dimensions. 

1634.24 Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. 

1634.25 Conditioning. 

Subpart F—Reupholstering 

1634.26 Requirements applicable to 

reupholstering. 

Figures 

Figure 1 to Part 1634—Cigarette Ignition 

Specimen Holder—Base 

Figure 2 to Part 1634—Cigarette Ignition 

Specimen Holder—Movable Horizontal 

Support Panel 

Figure 3 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for 

Upholstery Cover Fabric Smoldering 

Ignition Resistance Test 

Figure 4 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for 

Interior Fire Barrier Material Smoldering 

Ignition Resistance Test 

Figure 5 to Part 1634—Cut-Out Template 

Dimensions for Open Flame Test 

Figure 6 to Part 1634—Open Flame Metal 

Test Frame 

Figure 7 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for 

Interior Fire Barrier Materials Open Flame 

Ignition Resistance Test 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193. 

Subpart A—General, Definitions, 

Performance Requirements 

§ 1634.1 Purpose, scope, and effective 

date. 

(a) Purpose. This part 1634 establishes 

flammability limits that all upholstered 

furniture subject to this part must meet 

before sale or introduction into 

commerce. The purpose of these 

requirements is to reduce deaths and 

injuries associated with upholstered 

furniture fires. 

(b) Scope. All upholstered furniture as 

defined in § 1634.2(a) manufactured or 

reupholstered on or after the effective 

date of this standard is subject to the 

requirements of this part. 

(c) Effective date. The standard shall 

become effective on [the effective date 

of this standard] and shall apply to all 

upholstered furniture, as defined in 

1643.2(a), manufactured or 

reupholstered on or after that date. 

§ 1634.2 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions given in 

section 2 of the Flammable Fabrics Act 

as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191), the 

following definitions apply for purposes 

of this part 1634. 

(a) Upholstered furniture means, for 

purposes of this part 1634, an article of 

seating furnishing intended for indoor 

use in a home or other residential 

occupancy that: consists in whole or in 

part of resilient cushioning materials 

(such as foam, batting, or related 

materials) enclosed within a covering 

consisting of fabric or related materials, 

such as leather; and is constructed with 

contiguous upholstered seat and back or 

arms(s). 

(1) Items included in the scope of 

paragraph (a) of this section include, but 

are not limited to, products that are 

intended or promoted for indoor 

residential use for sitting or reclining 

upon, such as: chairs, sofas, motion 

furniture, sleep sofas, home office 

furniture customarily offered for sale 

through retailers or otherwise available 

for residential use, and upholstered 

furniture intended for use in 

dormitories or other residential 

occupancies. This includes the 

unattached cushions or pillows on such 

items if they are sold with the item of 

upholstered furniture. 

(2) Items excluded from the scope of 

paragraph (a) of this section consist of: 

furniture, such as patio chairs, intended 

solely for outdoor use; furniture without 

contiguous upholstered seating and 

backs and/or arm surfaces, such as 

ottomans; pillows or pads that are not 

sold with an article of furniture; 

commercial or industrial furniture not 

offered for sale through retailers or not 

otherwise available for residential use; 

furniture intended or sold solely for use 

in hotels and other short-term lodging 

and hospitality establishments; futons, 

flip chairs, the mattress portions of 

sleep sofas; and infant or juvenile 

products such as walkers, strollers, high 

chairs, or pillows. 

(b) Type I upholstered furniture 

means upholstered furniture that is 

constructed with an upholstery cover 

fabric or other material that covers the 

seating area and is certified to meet the 

performance requirements of § 1634.4. 

(c) Type II upholstered furniture 

means upholstered furniture that is 

constructed with an interior fire barrier 

material that: 

(1) Is located directly beneath the 

external covering material; 

(2) Completely encases the filling 

material used in the seating area of the 

item of upholstered furniture; and 

(3) Is certified to meet the 

performance requirements of §§ 1634.5 

and 1634.6. 

(d) Manufacturer means any entity 

that produces or reupholsters 

upholstered furniture or manufactures 

upholstered furniture materials subject 

to this part 1634. For purposes of this 

part, an importer of upholstered 

furniture is also a manufacturer. See 

subpart F of this part for additional 

information on reupholstering. 

(e) Produced means, for the purposes 

of this part 1634, manufactured or 

imported. 

(f) Upholstery cover fabric means the 

outermost layer of attached fabric or 

other material, such as leather, used to 

cover the seating area of the upholstered 

furniture item. 

(g) Crevice means the location in the 

mockup formed by the intersection of 

the vertical and horizontal surfaces of 

the test mockup. 

(h) Interior fire barrier means a fireresistant material which is interposed 

between the upholstery cover fabric and 

any interior filling material. 

(i) Fire-resistant material means a 

material capable of reducing the 

likelihood of ignition or delaying fire 

growth. 

(j) Flame retardant means having a 

chemical coating or treatment added 

that imparts greater fire resistance. 

(k) Ignition (for open flame testing) 

means continuous, self-sustaining 

combustion, characterized by the 

presence of any visible flaming, 

glowing, or smoldering, after removal of 

the ignition source. 

(l) Metal test frame means the 

apparatus consisting of two rectangular 

metal frames used for assembly of 

seating area mockups in open flame 

ignition resistance tests. See subpart E 

of this part. 

(m) Mockup assembly means the 

seating area mockup consisting of the 

component material to be evaluated and 

all required standard test materials, 

fully assembled in the appropriate 

specimen holder or metal test frame. 

(n) Sample means a material to be 

tested for use in upholstered furniture 

subject to this part. 

(o) Seating area means those portions 

of an item of upholstered furniture 

which a person may sit upon, or rest 

against while sitting, including the seat 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11741 

and the inside of the back and arms of 

the item. The seating area includes such 

surfaces of any loose pillows or 

cushions that are not attached to the 

item of upholstered furniture but are 

sold with it. 

(p) Self-extinguishment means the 

unassisted termination of any visible 

combustion within a defined time 

period after ignition source removal and 

before the specimen is completely 

consumed. 

(q) Sheeting material means cotton 

sheeting fabric used to cover the 

cigarette ignition source in smoldering 

ignition resistance tests. See subpart C 

of this part. 

(r) Smolder means combustion 

characterized by smoke production, 

without visible flame or glowing. 

(s) Specimen means an individual 

piece of upholstery fabric or barrier 

material, as defined in paragraph (n) of 

this section, used in a mockup assembly 

for smoldering or open flame ignition 

testing. 

(t) Specimen holder means the two 

wooden panels used for assembly of 

seating area mockups in smoldering 

ignition resistance tests. See subpart C 

of this part. 

(u) Standard polyurethane foam 

(SPUF) substrate means the standard 

substrate used for the assembly of 

seating area mockups to evaluate 

materials used in upholstered furniture 

construction. See subparts C and E of 

this part. 

(v) Substrate means the innermost 

material of the tested seating area 

mockup, representing the filling 

material used in upholstered furniture. 

(w) Warp or machine direction of the 

fabric means the direction of yarns that 

run lengthwise, i.e., parallel to selvage, 

in woven fabrics. 

§ 1634.3 General requirements. 

(a) Upholstered furniture. Each item 

of upholstered furniture subject to this 

part shall comply with the performance 

requirements of this part applicable to 

the upholstered furniture materials 

required for that ‘‘Type’’ of upholstered 

furniture and all other applicable 

requirements of this part. 

(b) Guaranties. Each guaranty issued 

under this part shall be in accordance 

with the applicable requirements of 

§ 1634.9. 

(c) Summary of § 1634.4 through 

§ 1634.6 tests. The test methods set forth 

in §§ 1634.4 through 1634.6 measure the 

flammability performance (resistance to 

smoldering or small open flame 

ignition) of cover fabrics and fire barrier 

materials through a series of tests using 

small scale mockups representative of 

the typical construction of upholstered 

furniture. 

(d) Standard cover fabric cutting—(1) 

Smoldering test. The vertical panel 

pieces shall be cut with the long 

dimension being in the warp direction 

and the top edge is defined such that the 

pile lays smooth when brushed from top 

to bottom. The horizontal panel pieces 

shall be cut with the long dimension 

being in the warp direction and the top 

edge is defined such that the pile lays 

smooth when brushed from top to 

bottom. 

(2) Open flame test. The open flame 

test specimens shall be cut with the long 

dimension being in the warp direction 

(if applicable). 

§ 1634.4 Upholstery cover fabric 

smoldering ignition resistance test. 

(a) Scope. This test method is 

intended to measure the cigarette 

ignition resistance of upholstery cover 

fabrics used in upholstered furniture. 

This test applies to all upholstery cover 

fabrics to be used in Type I upholstered 

furniture. 

(b) Summary of test method. Ten 

initial test specimens are required for 

the upholstery cover fabrics sample. 

Vertical and horizontal panels of a 

standard foam substrate are covered, 

using the upholstery cover fabric to be 

tested. These panels are placed in the 

specimen holders, and a lighted 

cigarette is placed in the crevice formed 

by the intersection of vertical and 

horizontal panels of each test assembly. 

Each cigarette is covered with a piece of 

sheeting fabric. The cigarettes are 

allowed to burn their entire length. Test 

measurements and observations are 

recorded during and after the 45-minute 

test duration. The mockup must not 

continue to smolder at the end of the 

test or transition to flaming at any time 

during the test, and the substrate must 

not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 

initial specimens meet the performance 

criteria in paragraph (m) of this section, 

the cover fabric sample passes. If a 

failure is recorded in any of the 10 

initial specimens, the test shall be 

repeated on an additional 20 specimens. 

At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested 

must meet the performance criteria of 

paragraph (m) of this section. 

(c) Significance and use. This test 

method is designed to measure the 

resistance of an upholstery cover fabric 

to a smoldering ignition source when 

the fabric is placed over a standard 

polyurethane foam substrate. 

(d) Test apparatus and materials. The 

test apparatus and materials used in this 

test are detailed in subpart C of this 

part. 

(e) Ignition source. The ignition 

source is the standard cigarette specified 

in subpart C of this part. 

(f) Sheeting material. Sheeting 

material shall be used to cover the 

standard test cigarettes. For testing, the 

fabric shall be cut into squares 127 × 

127 mm (5.0 × 5.0 in). Use the sheeting 

material specified in subpart C of this 

part. 

(g) Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. Upholstery cover materials 

shall be tested in a specimen holder 

using standard polyurethane foam 

(SPUF) substrate. Use the SPUF 

substrate specified in subpart C of this 

Part. 

(1) The SPUF substrate shall be cut 

into 203 × 203 × 76 mm (8.0 × 8.0 × 3.0 

in) pieces for vertical panels and 127 × 

203 × 76 mm (5.0 × 8.0 × 3.0 in) pieces 

for horizontal panels. 

(2) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be 

hand crushed before use by wadding or 

balling up one time in the fist. 

(3) On the data sheet, record the 

initial mass of each horizontal and 

vertical SPUF substrate piece to the 

nearest 0.1 grams. 

(h) Specimen holder. The specimen 

holder shall consist of two wooden 

panels, each a nominal 203 × 203 mm 

(8.0 × 8.0 in) and nominal 19 mm (0.75 

in) thickness, joined together at one 

edge. A moveable horizontal panel 

support shall be positioned on a 

centrally located guide. See subpart C 

and Figures 1 and 2. 

(i) Test facility and cautions. The test 

facility, exhaust system, and cautions 

are detailed in subpart D of this part. 

(j) Conditioning. All test specimens 

and standard test materials (including 

SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and 

sheeting material) shall be conditioned 

in accordance with subpart C of this 

part. 

(k) Test specimens—(1) Specimen 

requirements. (i) From the upholstery 

cover fabric sample to be tested, initially 

10 specimens shall be cut, comprised of 

vertical panels, each 203 × 432 mm (8.0 

× 17.0 in), and horizontal panels, each 

203 × 280 mm (8.0 × 11.0 in). 

(ii) The vertical and horizontal panel 

cover fabric pieces shall be cut with the 

long dimension in the warp direction 

and such that the major areas of fabric 

variation will lie in the crevice of the 

mockup assembly. 

(iii) The horizontal panel cover fabric 

pieces shall be mounted warp to warp 

with the vertical panel pieces such that 

the major areas of fabric variation will 

lie in the crevice of the mockup 

assembly. 

(2) Specimen mounting. (i) For 

vertical panels, place the cover fabric on 

the 203 × 203 × 76 mm (8.0 × 8.0 × 3.0 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

in) SPUF substrate pieces, taking care 

that any areas of fabric variation 

mentioned in paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section are positioned such that they 

will form the crevice of the assembled 

mockup. The warp or machine direction 

of the fabric should run front to back on 

the mockup assembly. Attach the cover 

fabric to the SPUF substrate pieces with 

straight pins and pull the cover fabric 

smooth so that no air gaps exist between 

the fabric and SPUF substrate. Attach 

the cotton sheeting material to the 

vertical panels with straight pins so that 

the sheeting material will cover the 

cigarette when placed in the crevice, 

approximately 50 mm (2 in) from the 

top of the 203 mm (8.0 in) dimension. 

(ii) For horizontal panels, place the 

cover fabric on the 127 x 203 x 76 mm 

(5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF substrate 

pieces, taking care that any areas of 

fabric variation mentioned in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section are on the edge 

which will form the crevice of the 

assembled mockup. The warp direction 

of the cover fabric shall run front to 

back on the mockup assembly. Attach 

the cover fabric to the SPUF substrate 

pieces with straight pins and pull the 

fabric smooth so that no air gaps exist 

between the fabric and foam substrate. 

(iii) Place the assembled vertical and 

horizontal panels in the specimen 

holder. Press the horizontal panel 

against the vertical panel to create a 

straight-line crevice at the intersection. 

See Figure 3. 

(l) Test procedure. (1) Place the 

assembled mockups a sufficient 

distance apart from each other to avoid 

heat transfer between samples. 

(2) Light cigarettes so that no more 

than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is burned away 

and place one cigarette on each mockup 

crevice created by the intersection of the 

vertical and horizontal panels, such that 

the cigarette contacts both surfaces and 

is equidistant from the side edges of the 

test panels. 

(3) Immediately after placement in the 

crevice of each mockup, cover cigarettes 

with cotton sheeting and run one finger 

over the sheet along the length of the 

covered cigarette to ensure good cover 

sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin 

timer. If a test is inadvertently 

interrupted or a cigarette selfextinguishes on lighting, it shall be 

repeated from the beginning with a new 

cigarette. 

(4) Continue testing for 45 minutes. 

(5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup 

assembly is smoldering, record a failure 

for the mockup and extinguish with 

appropriate means and proceed to 

paragraph (m) of this section. See 

Subparts C and D of this part. 

(6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric and 

remains of upholstery fabric from the 

substrate pieces. 

(7) Carefully remove the SPUF 

substrate pieces, clean all carbonaceous 

char from panels with a brush. 

(8) If the application of an 

extinguishing agent was not necessary 

or a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g., 

carbon dioxide or nitrogen) was applied 

to the SPUF substrate, record the mass 

of the un-charred portions of the SPUF 

substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams 

within 15 minutes and proceed to 

paragraph (m) of this section. 

(m) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample 

passes the requirements of this test 

procedure if the following criteria are 

met: 

(i) No mockup continues to smolder 

after the 45 minute test duration; 

(ii) No mockup transitions to open 

flaming; and 

(iii) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of 

both horizontal and vertical pieces) of 

any mockup assembly has more than 

10% mass loss. 

(2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the 

performance criteria of this paragraph 

(m), the cover fabric sample passes. If a 

failure is recorded in any of the 10 

initial specimens, the test shall be 

repeated on an additional 20 specimens. 

At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested 

must meet the criteria of this paragraph. 

(n) Test report. The test report shall 

include, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(1) Name and address of test 

laboratory; 

(2) Date of the test(s); 

(3) Name of the operator conducting 

the test; 

(4) Complete description of the test 

specimens; 

(5) Applicable smoldering and mass 

and data for each SPUF substrate piece 

from each mockup including: 

(i) Mockup smoldering at 45 minutes 

(Yes/No); 

(ii) Pre-test mass; 

(iii) Post-test mass; and 

(iv) The percent mass loss of the 

SPUF substrate of each mockup 

assembly. 

(6) Statement of overall pass/fail 

results. 

§ 1634.5 Interior fire barrier material 

smoldering ignition resistance test. 

(a) Scope. This test method is 

intended to measure the cigarette 

ignition resistance of interior fire barrier 

materials used in upholstered furniture 

to be used in Type II upholstered 

furniture. This test method applies to 

fire-resistant materials including, but 

not limited to, all interior fabrics or high 

loft battings to be qualified as fire 

barriers. 

(b) Summary of test method. Ten 

initial test specimens are required for 

the interior fire barrier sample. Vertical 

and horizontal panels of the interior fire 

barrier material to be tested are placed 

between a standard foam substrate and 

a standard cover fabric. The panels are 

placed in the specimen holders and a 

lighted cigarette is placed in the crevice 

formed by the intersection of the 

vertical and horizontal panels in each 

test assembly. Each cigarette is covered 

with a piece of sheeting fabric. The 

cigarettes are allowed to burn their full 

length. Test measurements and 

observations are recorded during and 

after the 45-minute test duration. The 

substrate must not exceed the mass loss 

limit at the end of the test and the 

mockup assembly must not transition to 

open flaming at anytime during the test. 

If the initial 10 specimens meet the 

performance criteria in paragraph (n) of 

this section, the interior fire barrier 

sample passes. If a failure is recorded in 

any of the 10 initial specimens, the test 

shall be repeated on an additional 20 

specimens. The performance criteria of 

paragraph (n) of this section must be 

met on at least 25 of the 30 specimens 

tested. 

(c) Significance and use. This test 

method is designed to measure the 

resistance of an interior fire barrier 

material to a smoldering ignition source 

when the barrier is placed between a 

standard cover fabric and a standard 

foam substrate. 

(d) Test apparatus and materials. The 

test apparatus and materials are detailed 

in subpart C of this part. 

(e) Ignition source. The ignition 

source is the standard cigarette specified 

in subpart C of this part. 

(f) Sheeting material. Sheeting 

material shall be used to cover the 

standard test cigarettes. For testing, the 

fabric shall be cut into squares 127 x 

127 mm (5.0 x 5.0 in). Use the sheeting 

material specified in subpart C of this 

part. 

(g) Standard cover fabric. (1) The 

standard cover fabric represents a 

smolder-prone fabric. Use the standard 

cover fabric specified in subpart C of 

this part. 

(2) From the standard cover fabric, 

initially 10 pieces shall be cut for 

vertical panels each 203 x 432 mm (8.0 

x 17.0 in) and initially 10 pieces for 

horizontal panels each 203 x 280 mm 

(8.0 x 11.0 in). 

(h) Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. (1) Fire barrier materials shall 

be tested in a specimen holder using 

standard polyurethane foam (SPUF) 

substrate. Use the SPUF substrate 

specified in subpart C of this part. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11743 

(2) The SPUF substrate shall be cut 

into pieces 203 x 203 x 76 mm (8.0 x 

8.0 x 3.0 in) for vertical panels and 127 

x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) for 

horizontal panels. 

(3) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be 

hand crushed before use by wadding or 

balling up one time in the fist. 

(4) Record the initial mass to the 

nearest 0.1 grams of each horizontal and 

vertical SPUF substrate piece in the data 

sheet. 

(i) Specimen holder. The specimen 

holder shall consist of two wooden 

panels, each a nominal 203 x 203 mm 

(8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 19 mm (0.75 

in) thickness, joined together at one 

edge. A moveable horizontal panel 

support is positioned on a centrally 

located guide. See subpart C and Figures 

1 and 2. 

(j) Test facility and cautions. The test 

facility, exhaust system, and cautions 

are detailed in subpart D of this part. 

(k) Conditioning. All test specimens 

and standard test materials (including 

SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and 

sheeting material) shall be conditioned 

in accordance with subpart C of this 

part. 

(l) Test specimens–(1) Test specimen 

requirements. From the interior firebarrier material sample to be tested, 

initially 10 specimens shall be cut, 

comprised of vertical panels each 203 x 

356 mm (8.0 x 14.0 in) and horizontal 

panels each 203 x 229 mm (8.0 x 9.0 in). 

If the interior fire-barrier material is 

directional, the vertical panel pieces 

shall be cut with the long dimension 

being in the warp direction. The 

horizontal panel specimens shall be cut 

such that the short dimension is in the 

warp direction. 

(2) Specimen mounting. (i) For 

vertical panels, place the 203 x 432 mm 

(8.0 x 17.0 in) standard cover fabric over 

the fire-barrier material on a 203 x 203 

x 76 mm (8.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF 

substrate piece. The standard cover 

fabric and interior fire-barrier shall be 

oriented such that the top edges of these 

materials run from top to bottom. Attach 

with straight pins and pull smooth so 

that no air gaps exist. Attach the cotton 

sheeting material to the vertical panels 

with straight pins so that the sheeting 

material will cover the cigarette when 

placed in the crevice, approximately 50 

mm (2.0 in) from the top of the panel. 

(ii) For horizontal panels, place the 

203 x 280 mm (8.0 x 11.0 in) standard 

cover fabric over the interior fire-barrier 

on the 127 x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x 

3.0 in) SPUF substrate pieces. The 

standard cover fabric and interior firebarrier shall be oriented such that the 

top edges of these materials run from 

the crevice to the front. Attach with 

straight pins and pull smooth so that no 

air gaps exist. 

(iii) Place the assembled vertical and 

horizontal panels in the specimen 

holders. Press the horizontal panel 

against the vertical panel to create a 

straight-line crevice at the intersection. 

See Figure 4. 

(m) Test procedure. (1) Place the 

assembled mockups a sufficient 

distance apart from each other to avoid 

heat transfer between samples. 

(2) Light cigarettes so that no more 

than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is burned away 

and place one cigarette on each mockup 

crevice created by the intersection of the 

vertical and horizontal panels, such that 

the cigarette contacts both surfaces and 

is equidistant from the side edges of the 

test panels. 

(3) Immediately after placement in the 

crevice of each mockup, cover cigarettes 

with cotton sheeting and run one finger 

over the sheet along the length of the 

covered cigarette to ensure good cover 

sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin 

timer. If a test is inadvertently 

interrupted or cigarette self extinguishes 

on lighting, it shall be repeated from the 

beginning with a new cigarette. 

(4) Continue testing for 45 minutes. 

(5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup 

assembly is smoldering, extinguish with 

appropriate means. See subparts C and 

D of this part. 

(6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric, 

remains of standard cover fabric, and 

interior fire-barrier material from the 

substrate panels. 

(7) Carefully remove the SPUF 

substrate test panels and clean all 

carbonaceous char from panels with a 

brush. 

(8) If the mockup has selfextinguished by the end of the 45 

minute test, or if a gaseous 

extinguishing agent (e.g. carbon dioxide 

or nitrogen) was applied to the mockup, 

record the mass of the un-charred 

portions of the SPUF substrate pieces to 

the nearest 0.1 grams within 15 minutes 

and proceed to § 1634.5(n). 

(9) If a mass-adding extinguishing 

agent (e.g., water-based agent) was 

applied to the substrate, re-condition 

the SPUF substrate pieces as follows. 

(i) Place the SPUF substrate pieces in 

the active flow of a laboratory air hood 

to dry for at least 24 hours. 

(ii) Measure and record the mass of 

the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest 

0.1 gram. 

(iii) Place the SPUF substrate pieces 

in the active flow of the laboratory air 

hood to dry for at least three additional 

hours. 

(iv) Measure and record the mass of 

the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest 

0.1 gram and compare the measurement 

with the previous one. 

(v) Repeat this procedure every three 

hours until the mass of the substrate 

pieces remains within a tolerance of 

0.5% from the previous reading. 

(vi) Re-condition the SPUF pieces 

according to paragraph (k) of this 

section. 

(vii) Record the mass of the uncharred portions of the SPUF substrate 

pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams. 

(n) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample 

passes the requirements of this test 

procedure if the following criteria are 

met: 

(i) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of 

both horizontal and vertical pieces) of 

any specimen from a mockup assembly 

has more than 1% mass loss; and 

(ii) No mockup assembly transitions 

to open flaming. 

(2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the 

performance criteria of this paragraph 

(n), the interior fire-barrier sample 

passes. If a failure is recorded in any of 

the 10 initial specimens, the test shall 

be repeated on an additional 20 

specimens. At least 25 of the 30 

specimens tested must meet the 

performance criteria of this paragraph 

(n). 

(o) Test report. The test report shall 

include, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(1) Name and address of test 

laboratory; 

(2) Date of the test(s); 

(3) Name of the operator conducting 

the test; 

(4) Complete description of the test 

specimens; 

(5) Mass data for each SPUF substrate 

piece from each mockup including: 

(i) Pre-test mass; 

(ii) Post-test mass; and 

(iii) The percent mass loss of the 

SPUF substrate of each mockup 

assembly. 

(6) Statement of overall pass/fail 

results. 

§ 1634.6 Interior fire barrier material open 

flame ignition resistance test. 

(a) Scope. This test procedure is 

intended to measure the open flame 

ignition resistance of interior fire-barrier 

materials to be used in Type II 

upholstered furniture. This test applies 

to materials including, but not limited 

to, interior fabrics or high loft battings 

to qualify them as fire-barriers. 

(b) Summary of test method. Ten 

initial test specimens are required for 

the interior fire-barrier sample. The 

interior fire-barrier material to be tested 

is placed between a standard cover 

fabric and standard foam substrate and 

assembled on a metal test frame. An 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11744 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

open flame ignition source is applied to 

the crevice formed by the intersection of 

the seat/back surfaces of the mockup. 

Test measurements and observations are 

recorded during the 45-minute test 

duration. The mockup assembly must 

not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 

initial specimens meet the performance 

criteria of paragraph (n) of this section, 

the interior fire-barrier sample passes. If 

a failure is recorded in any of the 10 

initial specimens, the test shall be 

repeated on an additional 20 specimens. 

At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested 

must meet the performance criteria of 

paragraph (n) of this section. 

(c) Significance and use. This test 

method is designed to measure the 

resistance of an interior fire-barrier 

material to an open flame ignition 

source when the barrier is placed 

between a standard cover fabric and a 

standard foam substrate. 

(d) Test apparatus and materials. The 

test apparatus and materials are detailed 

in subpart E of this part. 

(e) Ignition source. The ignition 

source is the nominal 240 mm butane 

gas flame described in subpart E of this 

part. 

(f) Standard cover fabric. (1) The 

standard cover fabric represents a 

moderately flammable upholstery cover 

fabric. Use the standard cover fabric 

specified in subpart E of this part. 

(2) The standard cover fabric size 

needed for each test is 1020 x 700 ± 10 

mm (40 x 27.5 ± 0.4 in). From the 

standard cover fabric, cut triangular cutouts centered 575 mm (22.5 in) from the 

top edge on both sides. The size of these 

cut-outs shall be approximately 55 x 135 

± 5 mm (2.1 x 5.25 ± 0.2 in) high. See 

subpart E of this part and Figure 5. 

(g) Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. (1) Interior fire-barrier 

materials shall be tested with a standard 

polyurethane foam (SPUF) substrate. 

Use the SPUF substrate specified in 

subpart E of this part. 

(2) Two panels of the SPUF substrate 

shall be used. The vertical (back) block 

shall be 457 x 305 ± 5 mm (18.0 x 12.0 

± 0.2 in) x 76 ± 2 mm (3.0 ± 0.08 in) 

thick. The horizontal (seat) block shall 

be 457 x 83 ± 5 mm (18.0 x 3.25 ± 0.2 

in) x 76 ± 2 mm (3.0 ± 0.08 in) thick. 

(h) Metal test frame. The metal test 

frame shall consist of two rectangular 

metal frames locked at right angles to 

each other. A rod shall be continuous 

across the back of the metal test frame. 

See subpart E of this part and Figure 6. 

(i) Test facility and cautions. The test 

facility, exhaust system and cautions are 

detailed in subpart D of this part. 

(j) Conditioning. All test specimens 

and standard test materials shall be 

conditioned in accordance with subpart 

E of this part. 

(k) Test specimens. (1) The interior 

fire-barrier specimen needed for each 

test is 1020 x 700 ± 10 mm (40 x 27.5 

± 0.4 in). From the interior fire-barrier 

specimen, cut triangular cut-outs 

centered 575 mm (22.5 in) from the top 

edge on both sides. The size of these 

cut-outs shall be approximately 55 x 135 

± 5 mm (2.1 x 5.25 ± 0.2 in) high. See 

subpart E of this part and Figure 5. 

(2) If the interior fire-barrier material 

is directional, the specimen shall be cut 

with the long dimension (1020 mm, 40 

in) being in the warp direction and the 

top edge is defined as appropriate. 

(l) Mockup assembly. (1) Position the 

seat frame in the upright position. 

Adjust the horizontal and vertical (seat 

and back) panels by loosening the 

screws holding the two panels in place. 

Pull the horizontal panel forward and 

the vertical panel upwards creating a 

larger gap between the two panels at the 

crevice. Temporarily secure the two 

panels in place (expanded position). 

(2) Lay the interior fire-barrier 

specimen flat and face up on the table. 

Lay the standard cover fabric on top, 

face up. 

(3) Fold the two sides of the top 

(larger) section of fabric and fire-barrier 

specimen (from the cutout upwards) 

over the face of the standard cover 

fabric. 

(4) Thread the folded standard cover 

fabric and fire-barrier specimen under 

the horizontal rod and pull them out 

from the back of the metal test frame 

until the cutouts are lined up with the 

horizontal rod. 

(5) Thread the folded standard cover 

fabric and fire-barrier specimen back 

over the rod and pull them out from the 

front of the frame. 

(6) Line up and pull both the top and 

bottom sections of the standard cover 

fabric and fire-barrier specimen so that 

the cutouts are lined up with the metal 

rod on both sides and the standard 

cover fabric and fire-barrier specimen 

are laying flat and free of folds and 

wrinkles. 

(7) Place the larger SPUF block flush 

against the back metal frame and resting 

on the fire-barrier specimen. Loosen the 

screws holding the vertical (back) panel 

and lower the panel until the top of the 

panel is flush with the top of the larger 

SPUF foam block. Tighten the screws so 

that the vertical panel is secure. 

(8) Lift the larger portion of both the 

fire-barrier specimen and standard cover 

fabric over the SPUF back block and 

secure them to the top of the back 

section of the metal frame using metal 

clips. 

(9) Starting at the lowest part of the 

vertical section on one side, clip both 

the fire-barrier specimen and standard 

cover fabric to the frame. At the top 

corner, make a diagonal fold of the firebarrier specimen separate from the 

standard cover fabric. Make a similar 

fold with the standard cover fabric and 

secure all the folded layers (both firebarrier and standard cover fabric) to the 

frame with metal clips to the side of the 

test frame. Repeat for the other side. 

(10) When the back section is 

completed, place the frame down so that 

the back of the frame is on the table. 

(11) Lift up the smaller portion of the 

standard cover fabric and fire-barrier 

specimen and lay them flat on the back 

panel. 

(12) Place the smaller SPUF block 

with the 83 mm (3.25 in) side flush 

against the seat section of the metal 

frame and press against the back panel. 

Loosen the screw holding the horizontal 

panel and move the panel until the 

panel is flush with the smaller SPUF 

foam block. Tighten the screws so that 

the horizontal panel is secure. 

(13) Pull the smaller section of the 

fire-barrier specimen and standard cover 

fabric over the SPUF seat block and 

secure them to bottom front edge of the 

metal frame using metal clips. 

(14) Re-position the assembly in the 

upright position. 

(15) On one side, fold the unsecured 

front edge of the fire-barrier specimen 

back against the SPUF block. Then, 

make a diagonal fold with the 

unsecured top edge of fire-barrier 

specimen down on top of it. Repeat with 

the unsecured edges of standard cover 

fabric and clip to the bottom of the 

metal test frame. Repeat on the other 

side. 

(16) Ensure that the standard cover 

fabric and fire-barrier specimens are 

smooth and under uniform tension at all 

locations to eliminate air gaps between 

the standard cover fabric, fire-barrier 

specimen, and the SPUF blocks. Do not 

allow a gap exceeding 3 mm (0.125 

inch) along the seat/back crevice. See 

Figure 7. 

(m) Test procedure. Have a means for 

extinguishing the specimen close at 

hand. A hand-held carbon dioxide 

extinguisher is adequate for most 

specimens; however, a water spray 

system should be available as a back-up, 

in case the carbon dioxide fails to 

completely extinguish the fire. 

(1) Pretest. (i) Tare the scale with the 

empty metal test frame and clips or, if 

the scale does not have tare capability, 

record the mass of metal test frame and 

clips. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11745 

(ii) Assemble the mockup as 

described in paragraph (l) of this 

section. 

(iii) Record the initial mass of the 

fabric/specimen/substrate assembly 

directly (if tared) or by subtraction (if 

not tared). 

(iv) Calculate and record the mass 

corresponding to 20% mass loss of 

initial mass of the mockup assembly. 

(2) Lighting the igniter flame. (i) Open 

the butane tank slowly and light the end 

of the burner tube. Adjust the gas flow 

to the appropriate rate to achieve a 240 

mm flame. See subpart E of this part. 

(ii) Allow the flame to stabilize for at 

least 2 minutes. 

(3) Starting and performing the test. 

(i) Place the lit burner tube in the 

crevice of the mockup so that the end 

of the igniter is at the center of the 

mockup equidistant from either edge. 

(ii) Apply the flame for 70 ± 1 

seconds, then immediately remove 

ignition source from the mockup. 

Observe the mockup combustion 

behavior for 45 minutes. 

(iii) Terminate a test run if any of the 

following conditions occurs: 

(A) The mockup self-extinguishes; 

(B) The 45 minute test duration has 

elapsed; or 

(C) The mass of the mockup reaches 

more than 20% mass loss of the initial 

mass before 45 minutes have elapsed. 

(n) Pass/fail criterion. (1) The sample 

passes if no mockup assembly has more 

than 20% mass loss at the end of the 45- 

minute test. 

(2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the 

performance criterion, the interior firebarrier sample passes. If a failure is 

recorded in any of the 10 initial 

specimens, the test shall be repeated on 

an additional 20 specimens. At least 25 

of the 30 specimens tested must meet 

the performance criterion of this 

paragraph. 

(o) Test report. The test report shall 

include, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(1) Name and address of the test 

laboratory; 

(2) Date of the test(s); 

(3) Name of operator conducting the 

test; 

(4) Complete description of the test 

specimens; 

(5) Mass data for the mockup 

including: 

(i) Initial mass; 

(ii) Mass corresponding to 20% mass 

loss of initial mass; 

(iii) Time to reach the mass equal to 

20% mass loss of the initial mass; 

(iv) The percent mass loss of the 

mockup at 45 minutes. 

(6) Statement of overall pass/fail 

results. 

Subpart B—Requirements Applicable 

to Manufacturers, Labeling, Guaranties 

§ 1634.7 Requirements applicable to 

upholstered furniture manufacturers. 

(a) General. Each manufacturer 

(including importers) of upholstered 

furniture subject to this part shall 

ensure that each article of upholstered 

furniture it manufactures or imports for 

introduction into commerce complies 

with all applicable requirements of this 

part. 

(b) Label. Each article of upholstered 

furniture subject to this part shall bear 

a label conforming to the requirements 

of § 1634.8. 

(c) Certification. The certification 

statement specified on the label 

required by paragraph (b) of this section 

constitutes the manufacturer’s 

certification that the article of 

upholstered furniture to which it is 

affixed complies with all applicable 

requirements of this part. 

(d) Basis for certification. The 

manufacturer shall have an objectively 

reasonable basis for the certification 

required by paragraph (c) of this section. 

Examples of an objectively reasonable 

basis for certification are: 

(1) Records of reasonable and 

representative tests demonstrating 

compliance with all applicable 

requirements of this part for each cover 

or barrier material required for the Type 

of furniture specified on the label 

required by § 1634.8; or 

(2) Possession of guaranties meeting 

the requirements of § 1634.9 for each 

cover or barrier material required for the 

Type of furniture specified on the label 

required by § 1634.8 and maintaining 

that the manufacturer has not, by further 

processing, negatively affected the fire 

performance of any such cover or barrier 

material. 

(e) Records. (1) Every upholstered 

furniture manufacturer (including 

importers) subject to this part shall 

maintain records of the test results and 

details of each test performed by or for 

that manufacturer (including failures) 

intended to support certification in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. Details shall include all the 

information required in the Test Report 

in accordance with §§ 1634.4(n), 

1634.5(o) and 1634.6(o). 

(2) Records required by this paragraph 

(e) shall be in English and kept at a 

location in the United States. 

(3) Records required by this paragraph 

(e) shall be maintained by the 

manufacturer during production of the 

upholstered furniture and for a period of 

at least three (3) years after production 

of the article of upholstered furniture 

ceases. These records shall be made 

available to Commission staff upon 

request. 

(f) Cessation of production. If the 

manufacturer becomes aware of any 

information that indicates that any 

article of upholstered furniture 

manufactured by that manufacturer fails 

to comply with this part, the 

manufacturer shall cease production 

and distribution of such upholstered 

furniture until corrective action has 

been taken to ensure that further 

production will conform to all 

applicable requirements of this part. 

(g) Notification to upholstered 

furniture material suppliers. An 

upholstered furniture manufacturer who 

becomes aware of information 

indicating that any cover or barrier 

material used, or intended to be used, in 

upholstered furniture produced by it 

fails to meet any applicable requirement 

of this part shall promptly inform the 

supplier of that material of the 

deficiency. (Upholstered furniture 

manufacturers are also reminded of the 

reporting requirements of § 15 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 

2064, and implementing regulations at 

16 CFR part 1115.) 

§ 1634.8 Labeling. 

(a) Each article of upholstered 

furniture subject to this part shall bear 

a permanent, conspicuous, and legible 

label containing: 

(1) Name of the manufacturer (and 

importer, if any); 

(2) Location of the manufacturer (and 

importer, if any), including street 

address, city and state; 

(3) Month and year of manufacture; 

(4) Model identification; 

(5) Type identification (i.e., ‘‘Type I’’

or ‘‘Type II’’); and 

(6) The statement ‘‘The manufacturer 

hereby certifies that this article of 

upholstered furniture complies with all 

applicable requirements of 16 CFR part 

1634’’. 

(b) The information required by 

paragraph (a) of this section shall be set 

forth separately from any other 

information appearing on the label. 

Other information, representations, or 

disclosures, appearing on labels 

required by this section or elsewhere on 

the item, shall not interfere with, 

minimize, detract from, or conflict with, 

the required information. 

(c) No person shall remove or 

mutilate, or cause or participate in the 

removal or mutilation of, any label 

required by this section to be affixed to 

any article of upholstered furniture. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11746 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1634.9 Requirements applicable to 

guaranties under section 8 of the FFA, 15 

U.S.C. 1197. 

(a) General. Either the manufacturer 

of a finished article of upholstered 

furniture subject to this part or the 

manufacturer of any cover or barrier 

material subject to this part may issue 

a guaranty in accordance with this 

section. The guaranty shall specify the 

classification(s) (Type I or II) of 

upholstered furniture for which the 

guaranty is intended to be valid. 

(b) Tests to support guaranties. 

Section 8 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, 

15 U.S.C. 1197, requires that a guaranty 

thereunder ultimately be supported by 

reasonable and representative tests. 

Reasonable and representative tests for 

purposes of this part shall be tests 

performed sufficiently to demonstrate 

that the tested item conforms with each 

applicable requirement of this part. 

Subpart C—Apparatus and Materials 

for Smoldering Ignition Resistance 

Tests 

§ 1634.10 Test room. 

(a) The test room shall have an 

appropriate fire protection suppression 

system. A suitable extinguishment 

system such as a water bottle fitted with 

a spray nozzle shall be provided to 

extinguish any ignited portions of the 

mockup assembly. Dry chemical 

extinguishing agents shall not be used to 

extinguish or suppress smoldering 

combustion since the chemicals add 

mass therefore increasing the post-test 

mass of the mockup remains. In 

addition, straight pins, staples, a razor, 

knife or scissors, a scale, and a brush 

and/or tongs may be needed to perform 

the tests. 

(b) If conditions in the test room do 

not meet the conditioning 

specifications, then testing must be 

initiated within 10 minutes after the 

specimens are removed from the 

conditioning room. 

§ 1634.11 Specimen holder. 

The specimen holder shall consist of 

two wooden panels, each nominal 203 

x 203 mm (8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 19 

mm (0.75 in) thickness, joined together 

at one edge. A moveable horizontal 

panel support is positioned on a 

centrally located guide. See Figures 1 

and 2. 

§ 1634.12 Ignition source. 

The ignition source for all smoldering 

tests shall be cigarettes without filter 

tips made from natural tobacco, 85 ± 2 

mm (3.3 ± 0.1 in) long and with a 

packing density of 0.27 ± 0.02 g/cm3

(0.16 ± 0.01 oz/in3) and a total weight 

of 1.1 ± 0.1 g (0.039 ± 0.004 oz). 

§ 1634.13 Sheeting material. 

(a) The specifications of the sheeting 

material are as follows: 

(1) Fiber content: 100% cotton 

(2) Color: White 

(3) Construction: Plain weave, 19–33 

threads per square centimeter (120–210 

threads per square inch) 

(4) Weight/square yard: 125 ± 28 g/m2

(3.7 ± 0.8 oz/yd2). 

(b) The sheeting shall be refurbished 

once before use with the following 

laundering procedure. The sheeting 

material shall be washed and dried one 

time in accordance with sections 8.2.2 

and 8.2.3 of American Association of 

Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) 

Test Method 124–2001 ‘‘Appearance of 

Fabrics after Repeated Home 

Laundering.’’ Washing shall be 

performed in accordance with sections 

8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of AATCC Test Method 

124–2001 using wash temperature (V) 

60 ± 3 °C (140 ± 5 °F) specified in Table 

II of that method, and the water level, 

agitator speed, washing time, spin speed 

and final spin cycle specified in 

‘‘Normal/Cotton Sturdy’’ in Table III of 

the method. A maximum wash load 

shall be 8 pounds. Drying shall be 

performed in accordance with section 

8.3.1(A) of that test method, Tumble 

Dry, using the exhaust temperature (66° 

± 5 °C; 150° ± 10 °F) and cool down time 

of 10 minutes specified in the ‘‘Durable 

Press’’ conditions of Table IV of the 

method. 

§ 1634.14 Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. 

(a) The SPUF substrate is used for 

assembly of the mockups for evaluation 

of upholstery cover fabric and interior 

fire barriers and to qualify standard 

cover fabrics. 

(b) Flammability performance. (1) 

Open flame performance. The SPUF 

shall be tested in accordance with the 

test procedures specified in § 1634.6, 

but without the use of the standard 

cover fabric and using a 5-second 

impingement of the 35 mm butane flame 

specified in § 1634.20(d). In three 

consecutive trials, using SPUF from the 

production lot to be qualified, the SPUF 

substrate shall have a mass loss that is 

greater than 20 percent in less than 120 

seconds after removal of the ignition 

source. 

(2) Smoldering performance. The 

SPUF shall be tested in accordance with 

the test procedures specified in 

§ 1634.4, but without the use of a cover 

fabric. In three consecutive trials, using 

SPUF from the production lot to be 

qualified the SPUF substrate shall have 

a mass loss less than 1%. 

(c) The SPUF substrate shall have the 

following specifications: 

(1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft3

(2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD): 

25 to 30 

(3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0 

ft3/min 

(4) No flame-retardant chemical 

treatment as determined by postproduction chemical analysis. 

§ 1634.15 Standard cover fabric (cotton 

velvet) smoldering qualification for barrier 

test. 

(a) Flammability properties. The 

standard cover fabric used in 

smoldering tests for interior fire barriers 

in accordance with § 1634.5, shall meet 

the following requirements: when tested 

directly over a qualified SPUF foam 

substrate following the procedure in 

§ 1634.4, the substrate mass loss average 

of 10 test results shall be 50 ± 5%. 

(b) The standard cover fabric shall 

also have weight/square yard: 10 oz/yd2. 

(c) A 100% cotton, velvet pile fabric 

of beige color, with no backcoating and 

treated with certain finishing chemicals 

involving a resin catalyst that contains 

small amounts of melamine, generally 

demonstrates the desired flammability 

performance characteristics specified. 

§ 1634.16 Conditioning. 

(a) All test specimens and standard 

test materials (including SPUF 

substrates, cigarettes, and sheeting 

material) shall be conditioned at a 

temperature of 21° ± 3 °C (70° ± 5 °F) 

and between 50% and 66% relative 

humidity for at least 24 hours prior to 

testing. 

(b) If conditions in the test room do 

not meet these specifications, then 

testing must be initiated within 10 

minutes after the specimens are 

removed from the conditioning room. 

Subpart D—Test facility, exhaust 

system, and hazards 

§ 1634.17 Test facility and exhaust system. 

The room in which tests under this 

part are conducted shall have a volume 

greater than 20 m3 in order to contain 

sufficient oxygen for testing, or if 

smaller, the room shall have a 

ventilation system permitting the 

necessary flow of air. During the pretest 

and testing period, airflow rates shall be 

maintained below 0.1 m/s, measured in 

the locality of the mockup assembly to 

provide adequate air movement without 

disturbing the burning behavior. Room 

ventilation rates before and during tests 

shall be maintained at about 200 ft3/ 

min. Airflow rates in this range have 

been shown to provide adequate oxygen 

without physically disturbing the 

burning behavior of the ignition source 

or the mockup assembly. In addition, 

the ventilation system of the test facility 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11747 

shall be capable of extracting smoke and 

toxic combustion products generated 

during testing for health and safety 

reasons. 

§ 1634.18 Hazards. 

(a) Health and safety risks associated 

with conducting the required testing in 

accordance with this part 1634 exist. It 

is essential that suitable precautions be 

taken, which include the use of 

breathing apparatus and protective 

clothing. Products of combustion can be 

irritating and dangerous to test 

personnel. Test personnel should avoid 

exposure to smoke and gases produced 

during testing. 

(b) A suitable means of fire 

extinguishment shall be at hand. When 

the termination point of the test has 

been reached and the fire is 

extinguished, the presence of a back-up 

fire extinguisher is recommended. It is 

often difficult to determine when 

combustion in a mockup assembly has 

ceased, even after an extinguishment 

action is taken, due to burning deep 

inside the specimens. Care should be 

taken that specimens are disposed of 

only when completely inert. 

Subpart E—Test Facility and Materials 

for Open Flame Ignition Resistance 

Tests 

§ 1634.19 Test room. 

The test room shall be draft protected 

and equipped with a suitable ventilation 

system for exhausting smoke and any 

toxic gases generated during testing. 

§ 1634.20 Butane gas flame ignition 

source. 

(a) The butane gas flame ignition 

source shall be in accordance with the 

following specifications or equivalent: 

(1) The burner tube shall consist of a 

stainless steel tube, 8.0 ± 0.1 mm (5/16 

± 0.004 inch) outside diameter, 6.5 ± 0.1 

mm (0.256 ± 0.004 inch) internal 

diameter. 

(2) The butane shall be ‘‘C.P. Grade’’

(chemically pure) butane, 99.0% purity. 

(b) There shall be a means to control 

the flow rate of butane. 

(c) In the open flame test of section 

1634.6 a nominal 240 mm flame butane 

is required. The nominal 240 mm 

butane flame is obtained by establishing 

a flow rate of butane gas that is 350 ± 

10 ml/min at 25 °C (77 °F) and 101.3 

kPa (14.7 psi). 

(d) In standard material qualification 

tests for SPUF and Rayon, a nominal 35 

mm butane is required. The nominal 35 

mm butane flame is obtained by 

establishing a flow rate of butane gas 

that is 45 ± 2 ml/min at 25 °C (77 °F) 

and 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi). 

(e) Flame height is measured from the 

center end of the burner tube when held 

horizontally and the flame is allowed to 

burn freely in air. 

§ 1634.21 Metal test frame. 

(a) The metal test frame shall consist 

of two rectangular steel frames locked at 

right angles to each other (See Figure 6). 

(b) The frames shall be made of 

nominal 25 mm x 25 mm (1 x 1 inch) 

steel angle 3 mm (0.125 inch) thick, and 

shall securely hold platforms of steel 

mesh set 6 ± 1 mm (0.25 ± 0.05 inch) 

below the front face of each test frame. 

(c) An optional standard edging 

section around the steel mesh will 

provide protection and greater rigidity. 

The rod shall be continuous across the 

back of the apparatus. 

§ 1634.22 Standard cover fabric (rayon) 

open flame qualification for barrier test. 

(a) The standard cover fabric used in 

open flame tests for interior fire barriers 

shall be tested in accordance with the 

test procedures specified in § 1634.6 

using a 20 second application of the 35 

mm butane gas flame specified in 

§ 1634.20. In five consecutive trials, the 

assembly mass loss must be greater than 

40% at 5 minutes when tested with a 

qualified SPUF. 

(b) The standard rayon cover fabric 

shall also: 

(1) Be 100% bright regular rayon, 

scoured, 20/2 ring spun basket weave 

construction; and 

(2) Have weight/square yard: 8.0 ± 0.5 

oz/yd2. 

§ 1634.23 Open flame tests fabric cut-out 

dimensions. 

The fabric cut-out dimensions needed 

for installing in the mockup assembly to 

conduct open flame tests are shown in 

Figure 5. 

§ 1634.24 Standard polyurethane foam 

substrate. 

(a) The SPUF substrate used for 

assembly of mockups shall meet the 

following flammability performance 

requirements. 

(1) The SPUF shall be tested in 

accordance with the open flame test 

procedures specified in § 1634.6, but 

without the use of the standard cover 

fabric and using a 5-second 

impingement of the 35 mm butane flame 

specified in § 1634.20(d). In three 

consecutive trials, using SPUF from the 

production lot to be qualified, the SPUF 

substrate shall have a mass loss that is 

greater than 20 percent in less than 120 

seconds after removal of the ignition 

source. 

(2) The SPUF shall be tested in 

accordance with the smoldering test 

procedures specified in § 1634.4, but 

without the use of a cover fabric. In 

three consecutive trials, using SPUF 

from the production lot to be qualified 

the SPUF substrate shall have a mass 

loss less than 1%. 

(b) The SPUF substrate shall have the 

following specifications: 

(1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft3

(2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD): 

25 to 30 

(3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0 

ft3/min 

(4) No flame-retardant chemical 

treatment as determined by post 

production chemical analysis. 

§ 1634.25 Conditioning. 

(a) All test specimens and standard 

test materials shall be conditioned at a 

temperature of 21° ± 3 °C (70° ± 5 °F) 

and between 50% and 66% relative 

humidity for at least 24 hours prior to 

testing. 

(b) If conditions in the test room do 

not meet the conditioning 

specifications, then testing must be 

initiated within 10 minutes after the 

specimens are removed from the 

conditioning room. 

Subpart F—Reupholstering 

§ 1634.26 Requirements applicable to 

reupholstering. 

(a) Section 3 of the Flammable Fabrics 

Act (15 U.S.C. 1192) prohibits, among 

other things, the ‘‘manufacture for sale’’

of any product which fails to conform 

to an applicable standard issued under 

the FFA. 

(b) Reupholstering upholstered 

furniture for sale is manufacturing 

upholstered furniture for sale and, 

therefore, is subject to the FFA and all 

applicable requirements of this part. 

(c) Reupholstering is any replacing of 

upholstered furniture material that is 

subject to any applicable performance 

requirements of §§ 1634.4 through 

1634.6. 

(d) If the person who reupholsters the 

upholstered furniture intends to retain 

the reupholstered furniture for his or 

her own use, or if a customer hires the 

services of the reupholsterer and 

intends to take back the reupholstered 

furniture for his or her own use, 

‘‘manufacture for sale’’ has not occurred 

and such an article of reupholstered 

furniture is not subject to this part. 

(e) If an article of reupholstered 

furniture is sold or intended for sale, 

either by the reupholsterer or the owner 

of the upholstered furniture who hires 

the services of the reupholsterer, such a 

transaction is considered to be 

‘‘manufacture for sale’’ and the article of 

upholstered furniture is subject to all 

applicable requirements of this part. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

11748 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: February 14, 2008. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

List of Relevant Documents 

1. Briefing memorandum from Dale R. Ray, 

Project Manager, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, to the Commission, ‘‘Regulatory 

Alternatives for Upholstered Furniture 

Flammability,’’ November 20, 2007. 

2. Memorandum from Rohit Khanna & S. 

Mehta, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate 

for Economic Analysis, ‘‘Technical Rationale 

Report for the Draft Standard for the 

Flammability of Upholstered Furniture,’’

November 2007. 

3. Memorandum from D. Miller, 

Directorate for Epidemiology, to Dale R. Ray, 

Project Manager, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, ‘‘Analysis of Laboratory Data for 

Upholstered Furniture,’’ November 16, 2007. 

4. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, EC, 

to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate 

for Economic Analysis, Environmental 

Assessment of a Draft Proposed Flammability 

Standard for Residential Upholstered 

Furniture,’’ November 2007. 

5. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R. 

Ray, Project Manager, ‘‘Preliminary 

Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed 

Flammability Rule to Address Ignitions of 

Upholstered Furniture,’’ December 2007. 

6. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R. 

Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking 

on Upholstered Furniture Flammability, 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,’’

December 2007. 

7. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, 

Office of the Secretary, to Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, ‘‘Ignition of Upholstered 

Furniture by Small Open Flames and/or 

Smoldering Cigarettes,’’ List of Comments on 

CF 04–2, December 29, 2003, revised October 

19, 2004. 

8. Memorandum from A. Bernatz, L. 

Fansler & L. Scott, to Dale R. Ray, Project 

Manager, Directorate for Economic Analysis, 

‘‘Test Program for Upholstery Fabrics and 

Fire Barriers,’’ November 8, 2007. 

9. Memorandum from P. Semple, Executive 

Director, to the Commission, ‘‘Finding of No 

Significant Impact from Implementation of 

the Proposed Flammability Standard for 

Residential Upholstered Furniture,’’

November 19, 2007. 

10. Memorandum from W. Zamula, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R. 

Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, ‘‘Costs for Non-Fatal, 

Addressable Residential Civilian Injuries 

Associated with Upholstered Furniture 

Fires,’’ September 6, 2007. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11749 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.007</GPH>
11750 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.008</GPH> EP04MR08.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11751 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.010</GPH>
11752 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 08–768 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP04MR08.011</GPH>